This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GabeMc (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 20 June 2013 (→MOS:LQ: I hear you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:34, 20 June 2013 by GabeMc (talk | contribs) (→MOS:LQ: I hear you)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
I no longer accept requests to carry out copy edits, though I may make very rare exceptions for classical music, sacred music and music theory articles that interest me. For topics other than these, I recommend using the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page. |
 |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
GOCE May drive wrap-up
Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
We have completed our May backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis |
Question
Sorry to bother you but if the GOCE member who c/e this article which has been reviewed here concerning prose issues decides not to resolve them, would you mind stepping in and helping? Thanks, jona 22:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, just this once. --Stfg (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar Award
|
The Original Barnstar |
| A BIG THANK YOU for GOCE editing and re-writing James Henry Carpenter :-). Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| You continue to amaze me by the way you copy-edit articles and the way you pride yourself into helping others in need. I came to you seeking help and you right away went to work, despite being a GOCE member in a ever so backlogged project. I would like to award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar in honor of the work you have done on I Could Fall in Love and for helping me out. It may or may not be passable, as you know how FAC reviewers can be at times, but it will stand as a testimony of your work for a friend. Thanks! jona 19:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you Jona. That was very kind, and is greatly appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
MOS:LQ
Hey Stfg, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. I noticed that in this edit you moved the terminal punctuation points to outside the quotation marks on the quotes: "forgoes his trademark arid wit for a decidedly more acerbic and direct approach" and "one of Harrison's most accomplished pieces". Yet according to MOS:LQ: "On Misplaced Pages, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Misplaced Pages consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material."
Well, since both periods were inside the original quoted material, I'm not sure why you moved them outside. Could you please clarify, thanks! GabeMc 20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi GabeMc. Yeah, this comes up sometimes, and MOS:LQ is not at all well written on this point. The way I figure it is that with its second example,
- Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable".
- when it says "The period is known not to be in the source, its presence in the source is uncertain, or its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary", the bit I've bolded is extremely vague, but I think it's better to put the period outside the quotation when the quotation only forms part of the sentence that we are writing. Note also the rather strange phrase lower down, where it says "if the fragment communicates a complete sentence". I've no idea what that's intended to mean, but neither "forgoes his trademark arid wit for a decidedly more acerbic and direct approach" nor "one of Harrison's most accomplished pieces" is a complete sentence, and to me that says that a period doesn't belong with either.
- I think that what I've just described is the most usual way in British English writing, but I'm by no means certain of this, so if any talk page stalker knows more and wants to chip in here, that would be welcome. And, GabeMc, if you prefer it the other way, go ahead and reverse it with my blessing (except that in ... his powers", Leng writes ..., the comma does need to stay outside the quotes).
- By the way, I was very impressed by your copy edit there in general. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks much for your kind words. FTR, I agree with your last example: I would have moved the comma myself, but I missed it. However, I do see the comma inside the quote marks in numerous books written by UK authors. FWIW, I don't have a personal preference regarding the terminal punctuation, I just want to do it the right way, whatever way that is. I do find it frustrating that our MoS seems vague on this point. The CMOS (16th edition, 2010) includes an example: "It is this vision of the future that is most alarming: 'If we run out of sources of electricity,' she asks, 'will we forget who we are?'"(page.624) Is your position that because "will we forget who we are?" is a complete sentence that the terminal punctuation goes inside the quote marks, or is this example from the CMOS incorrect? What am I missing here? Thanks for taking the time to help improve my understanding of proper punctuation. Your advice is much appreciated! GabeMc 22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Another example from the 16th edition of the CMOS (2010): "According to article 6, section 6, she is given the power 'o renew any existing indebtedness.'"(p.626) Is 'o renew any existing indebtedness' a complete sentence, or is this example from the CMOS incorrect? GabeMc 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- How about this one? "'Real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain and sale,' according to the section 2 of the Northwest Ordinance."(CMOS, 16th edition, 2010, p.626) Again, the comma is placed inside the quotes. Is the CMOS incorrect here also? GabeMc 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- (ec*2)It isn't a question of correct or incorrect, but of chosen style. CMOS style isn't LQ. Putting the comma inside the quote is common on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's not LQ style. Our MOS is clear about this. I believe that CMOS is correct about "will we forget who we are?", and that putting the question mark outside the quotes in a case like that isn't done in any style, as far as I know. (Once again, I stand to be corrected if anyone else knows more.) --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so maybe LQ isn't CMOS per se, but our MoS follows the CMOS most closely, not? In the 16th edition, section 6.9: Punctuation in relation to closing quotations marks, it states, "Periods and commas precede closing quotation marks, whether double or single ... This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906)."(p.309) Also, the CMOS gives this example: "Growing up, we always preferred to 'bear those ills we have.' 'Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,' she replied."(p.309) In the example they include both the comma and the terminal punctuation point inside the quote marks. Any thoughts? GabeMc 22:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- (ec*2)It isn't a question of correct or incorrect, but of chosen style. CMOS style isn't LQ. Putting the comma inside the quote is common on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's not LQ style. Our MOS is clear about this. I believe that CMOS is correct about "will we forget who we are?", and that putting the question mark outside the quotes in a case like that isn't done in any style, as far as I know. (Once again, I stand to be corrected if anyone else knows more.) --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know what CMOS says. Yes, WP:MOS follows CMOS much of the time, but we're talking about style guides, which describe choices, not laws of nature. You need to forget about using CMOS to refute WP:MOS. Both are valid. But here on Misplaced Pages, in any cases where they differ, we follow WP:MOS, and you can't cite CMOS to refute it. CMOS isn't statute law, you know. --Stfg (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I hear you, but in reality, what on Misplaced Pages is set in law? What if I said Fowlers, Hart's and the Cambridge Guide seem to agree with CMOS? Anyway, thanks again for your time and effort! Cheers! GabeMc 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know what CMOS says. Yes, WP:MOS follows CMOS much of the time, but we're talking about style guides, which describe choices, not laws of nature. You need to forget about using CMOS to refute WP:MOS. Both are valid. But here on Misplaced Pages, in any cases where they differ, we follow WP:MOS, and you can't cite CMOS to refute it. CMOS isn't statute law, you know. --Stfg (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)