Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 118

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

→

Archive 125

I'm looking for feedback on italicization/formatting of book and video game series titles at

) 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actor vs Actress terminology

I'd like to discuss applicability of

) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times in several locations including here [2] at the moment. So far consensus has been that wikipedia can be flexible about the use. The reality is that this is changing at a rapid pace. DVD commentaries from both the US and the UK have men and women who work both behind and in front to the camera referring to women as actors. Helen Mirren is on record as preferring the gender neutral term. Please read the article actor for further clarification on this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion in the thread you link was sufficiently involved to indicate consensus on anything. In rare cases, if the person herself prefers the term "actor", I could see that as a reason to make an exception. But generally speaking the term "actress" appears to me to have overwhelming prevalence for the moment, to the extent that I would find a sentence like "Angelina Jolie is an american actor" shocking. Perhaps an RfC would be useful here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is only the most recent discussion. Unfortunately, I do not have time to dig back and find the previous ones that have ocurred of the last couple of years. If I get a chance later in the day. I will do so. MarnetteD | Talk 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the gender-neutral language guidelines can apply here. The

related essay mentions avoiding "unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes", and I think that this is true here, since confusion depends on the traditional perspective that "actor" is purely masculine. When combined, male actors and female actors (actresses) are collectively referred to as actors. Most actor organizations are gender-neutral in their name, unless there was a female actor-specific organization that can include "Actresses" in the name. (That would be a situation where we would not apply the gender-neutral language guidelines.) In addition, I do not think readers would be "astonished" to see Jolie identified as an actor; the gender of the person is evident. I think that because we have a gender-neutral option here, it should be okay to use it. Erik (talk | contribs

) 16:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

When used as a collective term, "actor/actors" is certainly prevalent. However in describing individual female members of the profession the opposite is the case. I do not believe it is correct for Wikipedia to override the commonality of usage. As I mentioned, the best articles we have here, namely the FA class articles, consistently use "actress" as the descriptor in the opening sentence. The word "actor", when applied to a specific individual, still carries too much of a male connotation in common usage and thus is not really gender-neutral. Nsk92 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that it is "prevalant" is just not the case. Style guidelines such as this one [3] as one example are moving away from gender specific language. Just listen to the commentaries for the third season of Mad Men. Both the actors and the producers/writers etc. refer to the women as actors. It seems the profession is moving away from gender specificity and therre is little reason that Wikipedia should not follow suit. There are many terms that were prevalent at one time that we have moved away from and this one is in flux which is why flexibility has been the consensus up to now. MarnetteD | Talk 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Mad Men (never heard of it, actually, sorry), but based on my own experience in reading the U.S. newspapers and watching U.S. movies and TV, my strong impression is that at least for the time being the term "actress" has overwhelming prevalence in usage. When that changes, it'll be appropriate for Wikipedia to follow suit, but not before. At the moment the term "actor" when describing an individual still carries significant male connotations and is not truly gender-neutral. Like I said, to me a sentence like "Angelina Jolie is an american actor" still produces too much of a shock effect. Moreover, if the first name of the person does not clearly indicate the gender, a sentence like "X is an actor" would carry automatic implication to me that "X" is male. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some outside arguments to review: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. 3 is a book about culture, not language. #4 does not discuss the issue of whether or not "actor" is gender-neutral. The others are okay, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We are pointing out that the change has already occurred. Please note the following dictionary definitions. The Merriam-Webster definition here [4] especially its 1st example of usage in a sentence "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [5], here [6] and here [7] all of which use gender neutral definitions. MarnetteD | Talk 16:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To me the op-ed pieces cited by Erik, 1, 4 actually indicate that in practice the change you refer to has not occurred yet and that is exactly what the authors of those op-ed pieces are complaining about. Nsk92 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make an argument for my side. :) Just sharing what I found with my Google fu. I still find "actress" traditional and "actor" a viable gender-neutral option. I'm not going to comment further for now; it would help to get other editors involved in the discussion. Otherwise, this will be too much of a back-and-forth for anyone to easily join. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Change does not happen over night or with the push of a button. While a couple of Erik's links mention the Academy Award's please take a look at the terminology used for the awards voted on by those in the profession here Screen Actors Guild Awards#Awards. MarnetteD | Talk 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One last thing before I follow Erik's example and move aside for others. This discussion reminds me of the ones that have taken place in trying to decide the use of the terms "B.C. and A.D." versus "B.C.E and C.E." Again these have gone on in several places and at several times over the years. In each case feelings run strong for both sides of the argument. The Wikipedia guidelines have allow for the use of both terms for expressing dates and I feel that the same can be applied here. MarnetteD | Talk 18:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear opinions of other users, basically to have a bigger sample. Regarding change: change is a good and necessary thing and of course you are right that it does not happen overnight. But I think that in this case you are trying to run too far in front of a train. The proper role of Wikipedia is to follow the change, not to force it. I am all for using gender-neutral terms when they are truly gender-neutral and are generally understood by most readers as such (like doctor, professor, researcher, singer, writer, conductor, etc). But when a particular term is still not truly gender-neutral and still carries significant gender connotations (as is the case with the term "actor", which, IMO, when used as a descriptor for an individual person still has a strong male connotation), we should stick to gender-specific terminology. To do otherwise is too confusing for a general reader and produces too much of a shock/astonishment effect. Nsk92 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that, as always, we should be guided by the usage of reliable sources. So, we should examine interviews with film and television professionals, the writings of critics, popular articles in newspapers and magazines, the everyday usage of the general public, and so on. Do most English-language writers say actress for a female in the acting profession? Or does it sound like a quaint throwback? My (unstudied) impression is that actress is still more common. I would have said universal, but we are told above that this is not so. Apparently the crew of Mad Men prefer to call everyone an actor. In that case perhaps the article on Mad Men and the articles on the Mad Men cast should use actor and not actress. Apparently also Helen Mirren is in favor of actor. Maybe the article on her should use actor. But the article on, for example, the Academy Award for Best Actress should use actress. As long as we are guided by reliable sources here I think there is nothing to dispute. Ozob (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well all of the awards shows and whatnot (oscars, golden globes, etc.) use the term actress but in that case I suspect that it is to shorten the words being spoken ("best supporting actor/actress" instead of best supporting male actor/female actor). Though I personally prefer "actor" myself (long time female theatre nerd here) I don't see the problem with some flexibility in the prose of articles. Now if we're still talking about article titles and not the prose, as I said in the discussion at the project page, I swear I've seen it both ways on the site and neither bother me. But it might be worth considering that actors (male and female) with potentially gender neutral names could be confusing. So for article titles it might be good to consider going with the gender specific designations. Millahnna (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of hard statistics. Google Books says "actress Angelina Jolie", 459 hits; "actor Angelina Jolie", 17 hits. Art LaPella (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel that "actress" is sexist or reinforces stereotypes. Neither do I feel that referring to a woman as an "actor" is shocking or awkward, even if it is not the prevailing term. I believe that our contributors here have successfully made the case that using "actor" to refer to a woman has become acceptable. However, other contributors have made the case that it hasn't entirely caught on yet. I feel that the best position for Wikipedia to take is to allow both terms, instructing that no editor should change an article from one to the other without a specific reason. If "actress" falls out of favor, we can change Wikipedia's policy after that happens. It is not for us to redefine English usage.

WP:NOTCRYSTALDarkfrog24 (talk

) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm all in favor of PC when it amounts to something, like waiter and waitress, steward and stewardess, but actor vs actress is hardly in those categories. Neither is considered demeaning, which was the whole idea of pc in the first place. Silly to force someone to think of Venessa Redgrave as a "actor" to make some kind of point! And what is that point, exactly? Student7 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that, regardless as to whether YOU do not find actress demeaning, Vanessa Redgrave herself and others may personally find it so. You cannot escape the fact than an increasing number of female thespians ARE considering themselves and calling themselves actors. I don't think anybody is advocating a wholesale change across wikipedia but, in the instances where individual female exponents of the craft clearly consider themselves actors we should be flexible enough to reflect that in their biographies. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If they do find it demeaning - for which I see no evidence here - and when they persuade the general body of English speakers to change, we will (being English speakers ourselves) change with them; even now, if a female actor were so called by the consensus of reliable sources, we would do so too. Even if this happens generally, we should still use actress of Anne Bracegirdle - until the word joins poetess and webster in archaism. Until the first change, this is poor writing based on conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no suggestion that actresses in history and previous ages should be renamed as actors, that is not the topic under discussion here. The consideration is only in relation to biographies of living people. Until a universal change occurs it is not even suggested that ALL of the current cadre are retermed actors. All that is being suggested is that those who do openly identify themselves as actors (and it is after all accepted as a generic and androgenous term applicable to both sexes) should have that applied to their biographies without open edit warring. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 02:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really the question being discussed. The real issue is how to handle the opening sentences of all the BLP articles about actresses. There is one user in particular, User:MarnetteD, who insists (see her comments above) that the term "actor" has already gender-neutral and that the MOS dictates using this term in preference over the term "actress". For User:MarnetteD this is not an abstract position: she has been actively editing various articles accordingly and reverting users with reference to MOS, see for example these edits[8][9],[10]. She does that not only to those articles whose subjects self-identify as actors (such as Helen Mirren) but to a variety of other articles, whose subjects have not expressed a preference for such a self-identification. I would like to establish consensus here on how to deal with these types of situations. As I noted above, in my opinion the term "actor" has not yet become truly gender-neutral and in practice its usage contains a strong implication for the reader that the subject is male. I think that in order to avoid confusion that many readers will experience, the term "actress" should be used in the opening sentences, except for those cases where the subject herself has expressed preference for the term "actor" (like Helen Mirren has done). Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Now you have me totally confused. Wasn't that the case I was making? Or were you aiming your comments at the person that appeared to suggest renaming historical thespians as actors? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case you were making and I actually agree with your position. I just wanted to point out that one of the early posters in this thread, User:MarnetteD, does not agree with that position and my reason for starting this thread in the first place was to clarify the consensus in a dispute with her - that dispute concerns specifically the opening sentences of BLP articles about actresses. Nsk92 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename historical female performers as "actors"? Actually, that is totally questionable. In the specific case of Vanessa Redgrave, I would take V.R.'s personal preferences—taken from a reliable source such as an interview—as a good reason to write her specific article with her preferred term. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As always, this is solved by following the sources: When most reliable sources use actor, so do we; when they don't, we don't either. As long as we do that, it's not poor writing and it solves the question of which living people to apply this rule to. Ozob (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is the implicit assumption here that it is "better" to be a (male) actor, than to be a (female) actress. That has yet to be demonstrated IMO. ~~

Actually, no. That is your implicit assumption. Per the linked Merrion Webster definition above. Actor means person no male or female. That is the whole point - there is no better when gender is removed from a term. MarnetteD | Talk 20:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we shall actually have to add something to BLP stating a policy on "actress." Here is what GNL says on the matter: "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ('Bill Gates is a businessman' or 'Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman')." It seems that "actress" should fall under this existing guideline. Please note the word "also," which suggests to me that "actor" would also be permissible for female performers. My own take is that the case has been made for "actor" having become gender-neutral, but the case has not been made that "actress" has become outdated, harmful or offensive, so we should allow both terms. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that support what MarnetteD says above. Tony (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not believe that a convincing case has been made that "actor" has become a truly gender-neutral term. The fact that the dictionary allows its usage in a gender-neutral way says absolutely nothing about the relative frequency and commonality of such usage vs the usage of "actress". Any sort of comparative analysis of the actual usage of the term by sources for the last few years shows at least a 5:1 prevalence in favor of "actress" over "actor". E.g. a Googlenews search for 2010 for "She is an actress" gives 90 hits[11], while the same search for "She is an actor" gives 17 hits. Similar, a 2010 GNews search for "She is a great actress" gives 41 hits [12] while for "She is a great actor" gives 6 hits [13].
• My contention is that the great majority of readers still firmly, and automatically, associate the term "actor" with being a male. In this regard reducing the
  WP:ASTONISH
  effect and the general confusion that a reader may experience should be a more important consideration for us over pursuing a particular social agenda. The context of the usage also matters. I am specifically concerned with the usage in the opening sentences and infoboxes of articles about actresses. This is where the reader first looks for a basic info about a person and seeing the term "actor" used there would cause a great majority of the readers to assume that the subject is male, leading to confusion and in some cases (where the first name does not clearly imply female gender) may actively mislead the reader. By contrast, I am much more OK with using the word "actor" within the main body of a given article, once the gender of the subject has been clearly established. E.g. a phrase like "From an early age Angelina Jolie wanted to be an actor" within the main body of an article about her is much more acceptable and much less confusing than an opening sentence like "Angelina Jolie is an American actor".
• There is a considerable empirical evidence that, where the term "actor" is used in the lead sentences/infoboxes of articles about actresses, it does lead to confusion and makes many readers assume that there has been a grammatical error. To my knowledege, there is only one user, namely, MarnetteD, who has been consistently trying to insert the word 'actor' into opening sentences of such articles. I looked up a few of the articles where she does it, such as Geraldine McEwan, Greta Scacchi, Gina McKee, etc. In every cases the story is much the same. The history logs of these articles (I looked since Jan 1, 2010) consistently shows multiples attempts by multiple editors, both IPs and established editors, to change "actor" to "actress" in lead sentences, with MarnetteD (but nobody else) persistently changing them back, with a ref to MOS. E.g. for Geraldine McEwan here are edits by IPs[14] (March 18) , [15] (March 26), [16] (April 22), by [[User:Idreoso][17] (April 29), IP [18] (June 25), User:Christomir [19](October 7), and again [20] (October 20) and again[21] on Oct 21. an IP [22] on Oct 27 and then User:Christomir again[23] on Oct 28. All these edits, by a variety of editors and IPs, are persistently reverted by MarnetteD to "actor". The story is much the same with the other articles where MarnetteD tries to enforce the "actor" term. Like I said, general readers are, with high probability, likely to treat the usage of the term "actor" here as a grammatical error. The IPs rarely provide edit summaries, but here in an April 7 edit [24] to Greta Scacchi an IP does give the edit summary "Grammar correction". Now, if the term "actor" gives that much trouble to WP readers, this fairly clearly indicates to me that its enforced usage, particularly in the lede sentences and infoboxes, is premature. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In MarnetteD's case specifically, I would say that she should not go around changing "actress" to "actor" without a good reason. The expressed preferences of a given article's subject constitute a good reason. So I'd be behind changing "actress" to "actor" for Helen Mirren but not for any performer who has not made her views on the matter public.

Sorry, Nsk92, but I totally think that dictionary definitions should be Wikipedia's first-choice interpretation of each word, even if they're not the only ones we acknowledge. Take "pigtails" for example. Where I grew up, it means

this, but it is right and proper that the Wikipedia article be about these with a line or paragraph acknowledging the term's other meanings. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not so simple. The modern dictionary also contains the word "actress" with no indications of this word being obsolete, and the dictionary does not say anything about the relative frequency of the usages of various terms for the same object. Plus, as I said, in my opinion the proof is in the pudding - how the word is actually used by the sources (newspapers etc) and how actual WP readers react to the usage of the word. The empirical data we do have shows that the usage of the term "actor" in reference to actresses remains fairly marginal compared to the usage of the word "actress"; the evidence also shows that WP readers react to the usage of the word "actor" in opening sentences of articles about actresses with considerable confusion. I think avoiding such confusion and avoiding actually misleading the readers (in cases where the first name does not clearly indicate gender) is more important than other considerations here. Nsk92 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding MarnetteD's edits, I much agree with you, but the issue is that she regards the current wording of MOS alone as sufficiently good reason for changing "actress" to "actor" in the lead sentences of articles about actresses, regardless of whether or not the subject of a given article expressed a preference in this matter and regardless of whether there is evidence that the preponderance of recent sources refer to the specific person as "actor" rather than "actress". That is why I started this entire thread - I want to develop a consensus practical approach, that will help to limit page-by-page disputes and eliminate possible edit warring, on how to deal with opening sentences/article infoboxes of such articles. Nsk92 (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I think the USA has largely moved on from the old 1970s conversation about -ess endings being always sexist. I believe that women nowdays are more concerned with vulgar remarks and harassment in the workplace; and much less with job titles. Kind of passe IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Only someone who has not been paying attention can claim that I am "only" basing the gender neutral usage on the MoS. However, that is the starting point. The gender neutral guidelines were decided on by consensus so you can't act like they don't exists or don't apply. *Wikipedia's article for actor has a well referenced section on the fact that actor was originally used for both sexes and that the gender neutral usage has reemerged.

• I have provided several reliable source dictionary definitions and one independent outside writing style guide in previous posts all of which backup the gender neutral usage.
• These sources are more important to the discussion than an editors experience. There is no argument that, while our experiences are valuable to us as individuals, they can also be seen as limiting. Not being aware of the series that has won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series for the last three years can be seen as an example of that. Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this. I am sure that lots of people have missed this series but it speaks to why we should be using outside sources to determine our usage of gender neutral or gender specific terminology.
• For those who don't "feel" that the gender specific term is sexist be aware that others do and that is one of the reasons that the gender neutral section of the MoS exists.
• The cast and crew of Mad Men gender neutral usage of actor was only one example (there are others) of those in the industry who have already moved beyond the old terminology. It could just as easily be argued that sources should be provided that a given person prefers the gender specific term for usage in our articles, but I have not advocated for that either.
• When readers come along and change BCE to BC we simply change it back and the same can apply to this situation.
• Previous discussions on this subject have come down on the side of flexibility and, as near as I can tell, the same has occurred here.

Nsk92 seems to be asking us to make an exception to the gender neutral section of the MoS for this one term. For that to happen I would suggest that a much wider discussion needs to occur (perhaps a "centralized one" as has taken place before) than the one here that has involved eleven (apologies if I miscounted) editors.

One last thing. I am not sure why Nsk92 started referring to me as she in the course of this thread. I feel that the gender of editors is not germane to editing or this kind of discussion. For the record though I am a man. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes an ugly appearance in the MoS: "1⁄4 lb; 1+1⁄4 slices". Erk. Surely this long into the project there's a better way to render fractions? This came up at FAC a while ago, and there seemed to be no solution. Is a bugzilla report in order, to get something on the ever-increasing queue for the WMF developers to deal with?

I doubt that there's any HTML which would yield a decent result for that in all major browsers. With math tags you can get pictures e.g. ${\displaystyle \textstyle 1{\frac {1}{4}}~{\text{slices}}}$ but that doesn't look good if used inline with other "normal" text (as well as being unfriendly on screen readers and text-only browsers). I usually try to avoid vulgar fractions altogether in prose or (for fractions without an integer part) use stuff like 1/3, but when I do need fractions with an integer part, I think {{

frac}} is the only decent compromise. A. di M. (talk

) 18:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The math tags have options for how they render. I'm not sure how reader friendly the non-graphic version is. It would be a nice challenge for someone to write the code for the "Alt2 text to read as "One and a quarter slices." Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

The alt text for math formulas can be specified by hand. ${\displaystyle \textstyle 1{\frac {1}{4}}~{\text{slices}}}$ A. di M. (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless it can render properly in prose, I think examples of the template should not be included in the MoS. Tony (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I guessed it could, but thanks for the example. I'm not keen on "by hand" though<grin>. (I guess I'm not allowed to change alt text anyway). Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Also <math> is the only Wikipedia markup I know where trailing spaces on a line can be significant. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

• But A. di M. the fract template is not, I believe, "a reasonable compromise". It may exist on WP unhappily, but why exhibit its ugliest ramifications on MoS in apparent support of its use? I think the examples should be recast without this urchin. We are here to promote good practice. "1/4" would be the lesser of two evils. Tony (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• What's wrong with 1⁄4 lb? Looks good to me, and certainly better than ¼.
  books
  }

The green one is disjointed (the 4 is dropping below the divisor, whatever it's called); it's too big as a whole, and the individual numbers are too large; it's disruptive of the kerning. The alternative you give is just a little too small. Any way of making it 10% bigger? (Actually, the main problem with the green one is the distance between the four and the line: who designed that? The 1 is fine. Tony (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it still looks all good to me. This discussion would probably be better if moved to

books

} 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is with {{xt}}, which makes the text green and uses a serif font. Compare 1+1⁄4 to 1+1⁄4. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. A new template should be created, or an option should be implemented in {{xt}}, which doesn't switch font, for examples concerning the formatting of numerals. A. di M. (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't the serif font per se, but the fact that the font selected uses text figures. —Bkell (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We could make {{

frac}} explicitly switch to the desired font. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

¼ can be made larger the obvious way (¼), but single-character fractions only exist for a few fractions, and many fonts support most of them in a less-than-ideal way or not at all, so I'd rather avoid that. A. di M. (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm using OSX Mac, Firefox. The green example template we use here makes it much worse: that is the cause of the loping "4", which I think has to be dumped at MoS. A di M, the slightly enlarged ¼ looks good to me—perhaps not 10% larger (¼), but 15% (¼); 20% (¼) might bit a little oversized. It's a pity the repertory can't be expanded to cover all of the common fractions, and a template made to boost their size a little. I suppose one might consider 1/2, 1/3 and 2/3, 1/4 and 3/4, 1/5–4/5, and so on, up to 9/10. Not that many, really. Tony (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots would still help identify the problem.

books

} 04:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, here's a screenshot of part of Gadget850's comment above: The problem, as I noted above, is that the font used in the green fraction uses text figures. —Bkell (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In a few years time we can perhaps rely on Open Type fonts and CSS 3: Text (or

frac}} is as good as it gets. — Christoph Päper

13:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Internet_Explorer_6#Market_share, a not insignificant fraction of the Internet still uses Internet Explorer 6. IE6 turned nine years old this year. I don't think we'll be able to rely on recent web features for a long time. Ozob (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that more than 60% of users remain loyal to that frightful browser. The site is commercial; I had to click off a pop-up ad; there is no explanation of the sample size or methodology. I wonder ... Tony (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report - Browsers. IE6 is used by 5.32% of our readers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I will concede that I have not ploughed through 117 pages of archive which precede this page; anyone who feels that I should have done please feel free to say so.

On the matter of the depiction of dates; I understand that the correct formats are e.g. 14 February 2010 or February 14 2010. why is it not acceptable to write February 14th 2010? It is clear and unambiguous, and surely clarity and unambiguity are the two critical factors in any date expression? I am not being intentionally contentious, but would appreciate clarification. --

15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Either format is acceptable, except where there are strong national ties to a subject. The reference may be found here: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. As for usages such as 1st January, look at

WP:DATESNO --Pete (talk

) 15:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pete, with the deepest respect, I am here because of our earlier interaction. I was looking for a further comment from a previously uninvolved editor. --

^"talk"

15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was, of course, well aware of the UK-US difference and its relationship to articles relating to one or the other. --

^"talk"

15:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The correct month-first format would be with a comma before the year. If the sentence continues after the year, there would be a comma before and after the year. This is a style guide expressing the consensus about the style we have chosen for Wikipedia. There is no requirement to accept every usage that some publication somewhere considers correct; this is our publication and we can pick a certain style, or styles, just because we like it. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're slightly wrong there - it's 14 February 2010 or February 14, 2010. -- Smjg (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my question was not sufficiently clear; it related to the insertion or otherwise of the suffix -th (or -st, -nd or -rd) after the numeral. 14th vis-a-vis 14. I know the current policy; is it immutable? --

17:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, preference for consistency has prevailed in previous discussions over the assertion that neither inclusion nor exclusion is more correct. Out of two equally correct alternatives, one was opted for. It behoves us to respect this consensus for as long as it stands, but that does not mean that it is inappropriate to question whether opinion is still behind that resolution. FWIW, I prefer the status quo, because once the suffixes are permitted, extraneous ofs begin to emerge, and that is, slightly, detrimental to formal tone. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair comment. --

^"talk"

21:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Double "the" in the Section "Section headings" in the sentence: "These extra spaces will not affect the way the the heading is displayed to readers". Lew Wadoo (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed—Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to the opening message, which referred to not having ploughed through 117 pages of archive, I recommend the use of the search box. Searching can be made more efficient, if editors would remember always to use informative section headings and subheadings, and so forth.

For this discussion, the current heading "Dates" is informative, but the heading "Date formats" would be more specific and therefore better. An editor searching for date formats (via the search box or via the tables of contents) would not need to plough through discussions which are about "dates" but not about "date formats".

A "rule of thumb" for choosing headings and subheadings could be the use of three keywords; in some cases, two or four keywords might be better.

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#Informative headings, subheadings, sub-subheadings, etc. for comments which I made about eight months ago.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The "th", "nd", "st" is deprecated at WP, and is now distinctly clunky in RL text. Please note that the mdy format must include a comma. Tony (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC) PS One outlier was the Australian Bureau of Meteorology site, which expressed its dates in every weather forecast as, for example, WEDNESDAY THE 5TH OF OCTOBER (yep, shouting in caps, too). It took until just a few months ago for someone to point out to them that this ludicrous practice should be updated. Tony (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is another archive search box at

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from "Dates" to "Dates with ordinal suffixes".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)]

I have recently noticed that several IPs have been linking dates and inter-linking ad nauseum on several Singaporean TV articles. I began reverting them and leaving user talk messages explaining my actions. It seems that an IP hopping individual, or possibly several individuals, have seen fit to insist on the over linked versions. Is this point impportant enough to warrant page protection? Should I back away and leave the articles in their present state? I really am not invested enough to edit war over the situation, but the IPs' editing seems tendentious and without constructive purpose. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 02:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the TV articles from looking at your contribs list. If you need back-up, please let us know. Yes, I'd be inclined to insist on the practice endorsed by strong consensus last year. It is surprising that they refuse to engage in discussion about it. Tony (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not including diffs. I was watching football while editing (not recommended,btw). Please see here, here, here, here, here, etc. There are numerous examples. I would be more than happy to protect these articles but I am hesitant as I now feel involved because I have reverted several different IPs several different times. I don't want to appear obsessed with the subject but I believe that consensus is important. Thanks Tiderolls 04:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

IP users have reverted some of User:Tony1's edits to the subject articles. I will be reverting and semi-protecting those pages that appear to be targets. If I am acting inappropriately, please post to my user talk. I would appreciate any guidance in this regard. Thanks Tiderolls 08:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You may want to go to

WP:AN/I. There is a clear consensus against these sorts of edits. If the IP users are not responding to your inquiries, then their edits are disruptive. Ozob (talk

) 13:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've messaged the IPs several times. The result is they stop editing, change addresses and revert my changes. Sometimes within minutes. A rangeblock might be a better idea and, again, I'll undo my protections should that be deemed necessary. Tiderolls 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it sounds like they're being intentionally disruptive. I think you need backup. Go to

WP:AN/I. We'll support you on date linking; they'll support you in getting a range block. Ozob (talk

) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from "Question" (which provides attitudinal information) to "Date links" (which provides topical information). Topical information is more useful for editors who read the table of contents or who might later be searching in the archives. Attitudinal information can still be included, as desired, in the body of a discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)]

If they are all IPs, just request semi-protect for a week or so. Maybe they'll go away!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly detest sources that paginate this way, but I have a source where the pages are 1-1, 1-2, 1-3... and even the appendix is A-1, A-2, A-3, etc. How do I format the range of pages in a citation that starts on page 1-1 and ends on page 1-2? Imzadi 1979 → 01:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"pp. 1-1 and 1-2", (or "pp. from 1-1 to 1-5" if it stretches more than two pages), maybe? A. di M. (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That does seem clearest. 74.105.135.235 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on at

) 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Common English usage is that "it" is fine unless the sex of the rabbit is actually relevant. I don't think a MOS ruling is necessary or desirable when simple common sense is perfectly adequate. BTW Domestic rabbit is a much better article and WP does not normally allow for multiple separate articles about a single subject. Roger (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger, the problem is that User:Ed Brey does not listen to common sense (read the article talk page) and keeps reverting everyone else. In theory common sense would work, but in practice a guideline Ed cannot argue with would be preferable. The difference between the two articles is that "Domestic" focuses more on the utilitarian aspects (wool, meat, breeding), while "House" is about the pet angle. I think two separate articles are actually better here than a single overlong one. --Morn (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history and the talk page, I get the impression that

WP:NOTHOW. Roger (talk

) 18:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Morn, based on your description of the problem, it sounds like you may want Wikipedia:Mediation. Coming here to get your point of view written into the MoS is the wrong approach. Ozob (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Mediation would be that useful for a case like this where a single editor makes an article his personal playground and reverts everyone else. What Ed is doing is more like a sort of borderline vandalism, especially as the consensus on the article talk page is quite clear. If he was an IP his talk page would already be plastered with vandalism warning templates. Anywhere else except Mediation where I could bring this up? Village pump? --Morn (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it to

WP:OWN. Roger (talk

) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It, they, them. Seems like common sense to me. _wjemather^bigissue 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall discussing this with editors a while back - must be a couple of years ago, and I'm afraid I don't recall where. But in any case, as I remember it the seeming consensus was that "it" is always fine, and is the only pronoun usable when the gender of the animal is unknown or when a statement applies to both genders, but "he/she" can be used when it is known/obvious by definition. To that I would add that when an animal is named with a gender-specific name it seems odd to then use it. Thus these are all fine:

Jack [male name] was in his dog house.

The dog [known to be female] was in her basket.

The wolf [gender unknown/statement applies to both genders] protects its lair.

The hen [by definition female] protects her chicks. Barnabypage (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a guideline on this question at http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/P#pronouns.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been aware for years that no one

) 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From what we've seen on this page, yes, a Wikipedia-sufficient consensus can exist even if there is a strong minority voice that has better arguments, better sources and better precedents. Wikipedia consensus isn't a perfect system, but for it to work as well as it does as often as it does, we've got to put up with the times when a group of people who are in the wrong get their way because there are more of them.

No, being an article co-creator doesn't give you special privileges after the fact. While the FMC rule does mean people will have to follow your lead under many circumstances, that only applies to what you wrote as the FMC at that time, not to opinions and interpretations that you have now.

Your argument that the discussion should play out to its end first has merit, but no, they don't have to wait until they've convinced you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I'm not asking for any special privilege as the co-author of the article. I was just identifying another person who agreed with the use of animate pronouns. She hasn't had anything to add to the discussion yet (but actually presented the arguments that changed my mind to use animate pronouns many years ago). I'm fine with choosing consensus over arguments, better sources and better precedents if need be, but I hope that is a rarely used fallback. We'll see how the discussion goes.

I was disappointed in the insistence in Wjemather's instance to so quickly make wholesale edits that lose information. It's easy to convert from animate to inanimate, but there is no automated way to go back to animate pronouns, since some were male and others female. I would have expected a full discussion and consensus before any wholesale edits. Was I expecting too much?

More disappointing are the comments like "does not listen to common sense", "is behaving quite badly", "personal playground and reverts everyone else", and "borderline vandalism". These feel like awfully strong judgments, close to ad hominid attacks. I'm trying to understand how any of those claims are supported by the facts. Are they really warranted? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I brought up "special privileges" because you said "where there are at least two people on one side (the two co-creators of the article)." For Wikipedia consensus, the fact of being an article co-creator does not have any official special status. If you've been bringing that up on the talk page, that might be why some people think you feel like you own the article.

It seems to me that if any user says, "We should discuss change X before making it," then the other users should be willing to complete a discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I only mentioned "co-creators" as a way to identify two people on one side of an edit conflict. I didn't mean to imply that it mattered that they were creators vs. anyone else. Fortunately, I only mentioned it here, so the confusion should hopefully be cleared up. --Ed Brey (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading (on talk pages) that <cite> spans are discouraged, but I'm not sure what the relevant guideline is. Anyone know? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... no reply. I think it has to do with

) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but using tags like that in the header kinda breaks links to the section. Imzadi 1979 → 02:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

[In harmony with

WP:TPOC, I am revising the heading of this section from <cite> spans to HTML elements "cite" and "span". (Both tags—"cite" and "span"— are listed and briefly explained at HTML element

.) I hope that the new heading accurately represents what CharlesGillingham had in mind. Anyway, a clear answer requires a clear question.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)]

(I suppose this should go on a talk page for the talk page if there were one)
A section was started here, == Transparent backgrounds in images ==, to which a number of people subsequently contributed. It seemed pertinent to MoS, albeit in relation to the style of posting images rather than textual composition. It gave the impression of being a continuation of a discussion that might have started elsewhere, but that was not made clear. An editwar has ensued since then, with several editors taking it upon themselves to delete the entire thread, with paltry explanation as to why,and some very sharp language restoring the discussions. Even if one contributor to a thread was a sockpuppet (a claim that no-one has tried to confirm here), those who expressed an opinion in the thread should surely have the right to record their contributions. Anyone like to explain what is going on? Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't part of it, but here's what I found by looking:

To answer "Even if one contributor to a thread was a sockpuppet (a claim that no-one has tried to confirm here)": User:Blackbackground says "This account is a sock puppet". Did you want additional confirmation besides the fact he remains banned for it?

To answer "those who expressed an opinion in the thread should surely have the right to record their contributions", even if they are sockpuppets: Although Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors doesn't explicitly mention talk pages, it is at least a reasonable interpretation. It is also common sense that if someone is banned, then they are forbidden to edit this talk page, and further sockpuppetry shouldn't make editing this talk page OK. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But not every contributor to the thread is banned, and yet all of their contributions, that they considered worth making, have been summarily removed. If a conversation is building an understanding, then does it not serve to help in establishing consensus? If a discussion draws attention to that which is an erroneous approach, with suitable clarification of why it is not helpful, is that not worth archiving alongside other discussions? What is being deleted is not only "edits made in defiance of a ban", but the edits of presumably well intentioned editors as well. Kevin McE (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The well intentioned editors were answering the arguments of a banned editor. So if we remove the banned arguments, there isn't much point in keeping the answers. However, if those well intentioned editors object to the removal, then you have a good point. Art LaPella (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

While there's no doubt that the non-sock editors were contributing honestly, not knowing the originator of the thread was a sock of a blocked user, we must maintain a zero tolerance policy in enforcing blocks.

A banned user, or their sockpuppet, by definition is unwelcome here and cannot contribute. Their attempts at evading a block must be reverted and deleted on sight (with a rev del if possible) in order to make it absolutely clear to that sockmaster, and any others who might think of pulling that trick, that it will not be allowed, no matter what the content of their post. People are not blocked lightly, and sockpuppeteering only makes it more clear that the user has no intention of following the community rules. Sadly, that means the honest editors' contributions become collateral damage. I would be concerned somewhat if one of those editors were to complain, but they haven't. As veteran editors, they're likely familiar with the process. oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One of my favorite MOS guidelines is

) 22:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

After. Click WP:PAIC's evil twin

WP:REFPUNC, and within that click reference 5. Art LaPella (talk

) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:REFPUNC. That did it. Thanks much!  Marking resolved. Saebvn (talk

) 23:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, it's  unresolved. Could someone take a look at Kim Jong Un, the first sentence? I moved the reference to after the parenthetical expression, and now it looks strange. The reference (note 2) is clearly intended to accompany the hanja characters. What do you think? Saebvn (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it does look strange, now that I see an example. Ordinarily, parentheses surround a thought that can be omitted and still understand the main idea, and I can't explain why the Chicago Manual would recommend putting the footnote outside. My contribution here is automating the rules not making them, so what do the rest of you think? Art LaPella (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the guideline say that the ref goes before the ) if it only applies to the text between the ( and the ), and after the ) if it also applies to the text before the (? A. di M. (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should, but reference 5 mentioned above says: "The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed. 1993, Clause 15.8, p. 494 - 'The superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede. The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses.'" Art LaPella (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion has always been that this has more to do with visibility, readability and aesthetics than with strict logic (the reason in reverse that American unlike British typographers and editors put periods and commas within quotation-marks regardless of the logical or grammatical relationships.)^[1] Wikipedia's footnotes enclosed in those little square brackets^[2] look much cleaner and more visible outside parentheses. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question, A.diM. - does the guideline say that? I don't see it... Saebvn (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't now, but I seem to remember it used to (but I might be mistaken). A. di M. (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break: New Proposal Specifically for Kim Jong Un

As to the

) 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As of this timestamp, I've moved reference mark 2 within Kim Jong Un to inside the parentheses. Saebvn (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As of this timestamp, I've moved this discussion to the MOS talkpage at the link below. Thanks to all who helped with this -- I think we've gotten over the immediate hump, but it's clear that there's a ton left to be resolved generally regarding REFPUNC. So, I'm closing this out as "resolved," but please see the link below. Saebvn (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Break.2FREFPUNC_November_2010

 Marking resolved. Moving here. (Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this discrete discussion. I found this very helpful. Although there's clearly more discussion to be had, this one was great. Thanks again!) Saebvn (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly).

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style ranks 10th, with 17753 kilobytes.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
  ranks 11th, with 16097 kilobytes.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
  ranks 269th, with 2609 kilobytes.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)
  ranks 285th, with 2498 kilobytes.

Perhaps this will be a motivation for greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[25] [26] Art LaPella (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENDASH, item 2 is pretty clear: "In lists, to separate distinct information within points—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used between track titles and durations, and between musicians and their instruments. In this role, en dashes are always spaced." Dabomb87 (talk

) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Use spaced en dashes, or unspaced em dashes, although the space en dashes look much better IMO.

books

} 23:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%; they're big enough to be disruptive. Tony (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. Ozob (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear they should be okay if using a list. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

They are serving the same function that they normally serve, namely to set off some text from other text. Therefore the same rules apply, and they should be unspaced (or replaced by spaced en dashes). Ozob (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see

) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

I think, it would be appropriate to boldly warn against thoughtless JPEG usage for images. Most people are apparently ignorant of the image formats (though they can be good specialists in their areas) and by uploading drawings and other "clean" images in JPEG format waste their own work. Adding a link to

) 04:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the proposal, but I'm not sure what we could do to significantly improve things. We already have a section at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format explaining which file formats are appropriate for various situations, and another explanation at Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload#Do not save diagrams as JPEG with an example image. I would guess that most people who upload images have already created and saved the image before they visit the image upload page, so even a big flashing warning on the upload form would probably come too late. (What's worse than saving a "clean" image as a JPEG? Converting that JPEG back to a PNG because of a box that says JPEG is inappropriate.) —Bkell (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some templates could help educate? Image page:

This image appears to be of poor quality; this may be due to use of an inappropriate format during its preparation or final rendering. Please replace it with a higher quality image.

And something for the uploader's talk page too. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that there is information about the formats. The problem is that it is buried (8th section) inside

WP:IUP

, which is, in turn, 3rd reference in the "Further information". What I want to point out — most people don't know about formats and will not go that far to learn. At the same time, the issue is relatively important (compare to "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text"...).

As for "too late", even if they currently have only the JPEGs, the warning can help to prevent such mistakes in future. Moreover,

WP:PIFU contains the important "Keep the source" advice, and if the authors indeed have the sources (I don't think it's unusual), they will be able to make a better image easily. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk

) 03:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

distinguishing magazine website content from published content (for citation)

Have been using these two sources for an article:

• http://www.insidegymnastics.com/
• http://www.intlgymnast.com/

I suspect/know that they have some coverage on the site that is more breaking news, not in the magazine. Some where it is just the story copied. Any idea on how to handle this? I was just using the format for magazine articles, but now am worried I should cite as a web site. I guess similar issues could come up with Newspapers or other periodicals. Has this been discussed and what is best practice? P.s. I don't have stacks of the dead tree versions of these magazines and would prefer not to look through them, unless for some specific nugget of info, not just to compare website to formal publication. TCO (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

At WP:Article titles, we make it clear that recognizability takes precedence over national varieties of English. When there is a dispute over the spelling of an article title, that policy says we should we follow what ever is used by the majority of sources, even if it conflicts with what is preferred locally. The example used for this is choosing the more widely recognizable Ganges vs the locally preferred "Ganga".

) 14:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your chosen example, Ganges/Ganga, is clearly a matter of unresolved controversy at WT:TITLE, so should not be used to present here a claim of consensus. Why it is such a problem when we have the possibility of redirects is unclear. Recognisability is a subjective judgement: many of our renderings of, for example, Eastern European names with many diacritics in article titles are scarcely recognisable at first glance. Kevin McE (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I raised the Ganges/Ganga debate because it is the current dispute that highlights the conflict between WP:MOS and WP:AT, not to argue a claim of consensus. My point is that we seem to have a conflict between WP:AT and WP:MOS, and that conflict needs to be resolved. WP:AT has long indicated a preference for recognizability (as spelled out at

WP:COMMONNAME) as one of the principle criteria (and, arguably, the most important criteria) in determining an article title. MOS indicates a preference for local usage and spelling. Most of the time these two criteria do not conflict (the local usage will be the most common in sources)... but we now have a debate where they do conflict (the Ganges/Ganga debate)... and to resolve that specific conflict, we need to resolve the policy conflict. I attempted to sync this page with WP:AT and was reverted (which is fine)... so now we need to discuss the situation and see where the consensus lies. Blueboar (talk

) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that, but you had tried to change policy before consensus, which cannot be the right way of doing things. When that controversy is resolved, then any important lessons learned can be proposed for inclusion in MoS. Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the proponents of the various viewpoints in the debate are all pointing to WP:MOS and WP:AT to "prove" their points... in other words, we need to reach a consensus and resolve the conflict at the policy level in order to resolve the debate at the article level. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you are not admitting to changing what policy says so that you can make a claim on the basis of what policy says... Kevin McE (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No... I did not edit to support an argument. That debate did cause me to notice that the policy and the guideline were not in sync... and did prompt me to attempt to resolve the conflict... but the edit was a good faith attempt. I accept the reversion and now am calling for everyone to discuss the situation and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is simple... WP:AT tells us to defer to whatever name (and thus spelling) is most commonly used... WP:MOS tells us to defer to local spelling (and thus local names). Most of the time, these do not conflict (local usage is usually the most common) ... but what should we do when they do conflict? Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I had phrased myself in a way that showed that I was willing to assume good faith, while thinking there was a prima facie case for concern about the edit.

I'm not sure why there ever need be a conflict. The article name should be the commonname in the version of English prescribed by WP:TIES, which might be quite different from that used in UK or US. If there is another name that is common in another (or indeed, the same) version of English, there can be a redirect page. Whether or not Ganga is genuinely in use as an English language name in India, rather than English speakers there sometimes employing a word from another local language, is another matter. Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar I do not think that the understanding of common usage as you present it here is correct. I think Kevin McE is closer to my understanding, and the wording of AT did not contradict the MOS (but then years ago I helped draft the understanding of both and move the AT paragraph up out of the UE guideline about 2 years so

talk

) 00:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange, Blueboar, that you're writing something into WP:Article titles one day, and then complaining that the MOS contradicts it the next. I agree with the position you're trying to get into policy, but with apparently no clear consensus on the Ganges question, I don't see how you claim that the community has actually shown any general acceptance of this position.--Kotniski (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize how it looks... but please assume good faith here... again, while that specific debate is what caused me to look at the policy, I am concerned with policy issues, not with any specific debate. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the policy on this was sorted out some years ago over various articles title of places on the Subcontinent

talk

) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have put back the wording in

WP:AT#National varieties of English

to how it was on 20 November before the recent modifications and something that has been stable for a long time.

"An article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (for example Australian Defence Force). ... But when local usage is itself divided, we do not necessarily follow the majority or plurality of local English usage against the consensus of the rest of the English-speaking world."

comment: Actually... the sentence about local usage being divided was added on Sept. 1, so that part (which is the core of the conflict) has not been stable for "long time". The rest has... so I have taken it back to the pre Sept. 1 version pending further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as contradicting the MOS (

talk

) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... It seems that the issue is less a conflict between MOS and TITLE, as a conflict within TITLE. I have a problem with basing our titles on whether local English usage is divided or not... at the moment we are saying that when a local usage is different from what is used by the rest of the English speaking world, we should go with the less common local usage. That contradicts the entire concept behind

WP:COMMONNAME and the principle of recognizability. That said... It is obvious that we need to hammer this out at WT:TITLE first... and then return here if needed. I thank all for their comments so far, and encourage you to help us reach a consensus at TITLE. Blueboar (talk

) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge since at least 2005 when this was first discussed and a lot of people participated in the

talk

) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does call into question the concept of national variations in English where article titles are concerned (this is why I say there is a conflict). The entire point of COMMONNAME is that we prevent edit warring and POV nationalistic fights over names by deferring to what ever is the most commonly used name in English language sources. COMMONNAME does not specify a preference for local sources... it says to look at English language sources (period)... to me that means all English language sources (including both local and non-local sources). 99% of the time, the most common name will be what the locals use (as locals are the most likely people to write about the subject)... but in that 1% of situations where the local's use a name that is not used by the rest of the English speaking world, we should follow the majority of sources. We should not use a less common name in preference to a more common name, period. You actually encourage nationalistic editors to push for "their" version of the name, over what is used by the English speaking world at large. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, this conversation is about used in the English speaking nations (the US and the others most (all?) of which are members of the

talk

) 03:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The two Wikipedia pages address slightly different points. The title should be what most anglophones use, because we do not want New Zealanders or Trinidadese to wonder if they are at the wrong article; when writing the text of the article, we should use honour because we believe that most of those reading it (like most of those writing it) will be Indians, and used to that spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

PMA, can you clarify... I think you are supporting my point but let me make sure... are you saying that the title should be whatever is most common (looking at both local and non-local usage), but the rest of the article text should follow local spelling norms. ie, that we follow local norms for everything except the name? Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that because other considerations apply to both; but - other things being equal - the title should be more weighted to common usage in the world; the text should be written for locals, when a choice must be made. When it need not be, a mid-Pacific phrasing is better still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that... now... how do we phrase it for policy? Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between "

talk

) 03:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a very large difference;

Mumbai terrorist attacks made plain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming to this page, I would have agreed with Blueboar -- we should simply go by what is used most commonly in English-language sources, without regard for where these sources originate from. This is based on the assumption that the geographical distribution of news reports will roughly correlate to the geographical distribution of people looking up the article. For example, most English-language sources on the

Lech Walesa, even though most English-language media sources can't be bothered to look for ł and ę on their keyboard. Any ideas how we can get these competing concerns under one hat? --JN466

10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: As the Ganga example is mentioned here, and editors may have commented off the top of their heads, without researching the matter, I do want to point out that Ganges is no longer more commonly used than Ganga, neither in the media nor in international scholarship. Here are the Google Scholar publications from this year:

• 27 with Ganges in the title, and river in the text.
• 38 with Ganga in the title, and river in the text.

In recent news reporting, Ganga now seems to occur more often in English-language sources than Ganges. --JN466 10:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... and I note that if you broaden the search to "since 2000" you get similar results (a slight favoring of Ganga among scholars)... However, Google News hits (since 2000) shows a different result... "Ganges river" gets 1100 hits while "Ganga river" only gets 422 hits. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

2,540 vs. 1,950 without quotes (note that both figures are algorithm-based estimates though, rather than actual source counts). This raises another point I had meant to mention -- if a name has changed, I believe we should look at sources published after the name change, to assess to what extent RS have adopted the change. --JN466 14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for this conversation to take place on just one page (not at both MOS and AT) - preferably the article's talk page? Thanks.--Kotniski (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes... I agree we need a centralized discussion... I originally thought that it should be here... but given the comments, I have changed my mind, and I think it should be at

WT:TITLE ... once we reach a consensus on the policy page, we can always return here and discuss any conflicts. Then we can apply the consensus of both pages to the article. Blueboar (talk

) 15:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about jargon and incomprehensibility

At Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines#Snake lemma as example. Some FAs are discussed as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the word jargon needs some explaining in this guideline, because [27]:

1. S: (n) slang, cant, jargon, lingo, argot, patois, vernacular (a characteristic language of a particular group (as among thieves)) "they don't speak our lingo"
2. S: (n) jargon (specialized technical terminology characteristic of a particular subject)

Clearly jargon under the first meaning should be avoided, but it's not clear at all how someone could for instance avoid using

sertaline, major scale at B major, or even the extent to which explaining such jargon (other than by wikilink) is desirable in those articles. Tijfo098 (talk

) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue in two sections here:

WP:MOS#Technical language. Tijfo098 (talk

) 00:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you can apply a rule of thumb similar to translations ("as literal as possible but as free as necessary"). So use jargon when necessary, but avoid it when possible.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I think about it is to ask whether there is some more well known term. For example "water" is more common than "dihydrogen monoxide", so we should use "water". But there is no more common term for "major scale" or "abelian category" and so using those terms is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise we'd end up with a system like the Simple English Wikipedia where every concept has to be described using an artificially limited vocabulary. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable view. I don't think avoiding such terms is appropriate on en.wiki. Unfortunately that leaves only the other option of "Jargon should be explained or avoided" in

WP:MOS#Clarity, only says "avoid jargon". It's not clear what "Jargon should be explained" means either: explained in the text of every article? Explained by wiki link? Tijfo098 (talk

) 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's always been a vague point. Clearly not every term can be explained in the first paragraph of every article; but at the same time I seem to remember some guideline or MOS page that claimed that readers should not have to follow wikilinks. Of course this is contradictory. There is also a conflict between the goal of explaining everything in every article and the goal of not being a textbook.

Speaking for myself only, I like to treat it like this. Suppose that topic X has "prerequisites" Y and Z. Then in the article on X I will try to explain Y and Z, but usually I won't try to explain the prerequisites of Y and Z. So my goal is that if someone is "almost" ready to read the article, but doesn't have the prerequisites down, the article is still readable. But for particularly technical topics, readers who have no background at all will need to do some further reading before coming back to the article.

Of course each article is different, and there are many factors that influence the intended audience. This makes it hard to make any firm recommendation for all articles. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-TOC heading

Can't seem to find it in the MoS—when is it appropriate to use the following heading type?

Lorem ipsum

— Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The HTML generated by that is <dt> for "definition term" (though "definition" can be taken broadly); it matches with the <dd> generated by a colon at the start of the line. See Field_(mathematics)#Definition_and_illustration for a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. di M. (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But the answer is: when you have a series of bold headings so close together that it is unlikely that anybody will want to see them in the table of contents, or to edit them separately; a list of definitions with the

headwords in bold would be one example. (The whole list, or letters of the alphabet within it, will be sections, but not each definition.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson

17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks—just what I was looking for :) — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted the space after the closing parenthesis from this sentence:

Spent shale may contain char (some authors use the terms coke residue or semi-coke instead of char) —a carbonaceous residue formed from kerogen.

(The article is

19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Em dash is punctuation, so it should be unspaced, just liked "... instead of char), a carbonaceous ..." would.

books

} 19:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, then I think the note on closing brackets should be changed to make that explicit. The exception given for a dash seems to be in conflict with your (and my) interpretation. Mike Christie (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of the guide exactly is at issue here? I can't see a problem. I generally avoid the jostling of parentheses and unspaced em dashes, but sometimes it can be a little difficult. Is there any need to be explicit? Tony (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the answer is to separate them when possible. When it's not easy to separate them, though, I think MoS currently says contradictory things. It says em dashes are unspaced, and it says a space should follow a closing bracket, specifically including dashes in the scope of that statement. When would you actually leave a space between a closing bracket and a punctuation mark? Off hand I can't think of a case. Mike Christie (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a change that I think clarifies the situation; it now reads "There should be a space after a closing bracket, except where a punctuation mark follows (though a spaced dash would still be spaced after a closing bracket), and in unusual cases similar to those listed for opening brackets." This could be written more smoothly but at least this version is not in conflict with the guidance on dashes. Any objections to this version? Mike Christie (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I comprehend it. And User:Noetica has emailed advice that I can't look at properly until late Monday, given my election and The Sinpost commitments. Tony (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What about "There should be a space after a closing bracket, except before punctuation marks normally closed up with the previous word"? A. di M. (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me. Does a reference need to be made to the "unusual cases similar to those listed for opening brackets"? Mike Christie (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No further comments, so I've made the change, using A. di M.'s version. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted, not for a great preference for the previous phrase, but because "punctuation marks normally closed up with" is not a phrase with any clear meaning, and is not (in UK English at least) a standard grammatical description. Frankly, if there is a need for punctuation to follow, I would suggest that brackets should be avoided at all costs: it should always be possibly to rephrase or repunctuate. For example, the sentence giving rise to this discussion could be rendered Spent shale may contain char, otherwise known as coke residue or semi-coke, which is a carbonaceous residue formed from kerogen. If we are going to condone/commend the practice, then I would suggest a re-phrasing, avoiding this "closed up with" construction: maybe ""There should be a space after a closing bracket, except before punctuation marks related to the previous word". Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't my wording, so I don't mind. I agree about rephrasing; my main concern is that the guidance given is unambiguous, and I think that's now the case. Any improvements to the current clunky wording are fine with me so long as the additional clarification remains in place. Mike Christie (talk - library) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This weekend is the final chance to vote in the

) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

• Proceed here to cast your vote

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Given

Six months old. Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

This edit to require an nbsp before an en dash just undid

) 06:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that whenever we use a spaced en dash, the first space should be nonbreaking to preclude having a line break between the preceding word and the dash. One reason I use unspaced em dashes . . . JeffConrad (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this a problem? I've never noticed it. Tony (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to cause a line break between a word and a spaced en dash that follows it – just adjust the window width. JeffConrad (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see lots of bad line breaks, probably because I use a narrow window width. In TeX I would type ties (~) to insert non-breaking spaces in all the following examples:

As explained by Richardson~(1990), ...

Theorem~1 says ...

Theorems~2 and~3 say ...

Richard~III was a king

Any word of 15~or more letters ...

This gives us another derivation of~π.

On Wikipedia, I don't do this as much because it's more painful to type nonbreaking spaces. I would guess that many editors have never thought about the issue of line breaks in the first place. — Carl (

) 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why other people and I have proposed using a simpler mark-up for the hard space, though all such proposals went down as lead balloons. As for en dashes, maybe the MediaWiki software could be modified to automatically replace spaces before them with hard spaces, the way it already does for spaces before ! ? : ; » % and something else I can't remember (as in French those punctuation marks are preceded by hard spaces). A. di M. (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we could do it like this. Maybe someone could write a gadget that would replace some character(s), just before saving, with a nonbreaking space. That would make it easier for people who know about them to type them, but not require any changes for other editors or for the underlying mediawiki software. Which characters from the previous suggestions were the best candidates? — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, User:Noetica proposed two commas and I proposed an underscore. A. di M. (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Underscores would be bad for my suggestion because they often appear in links, where the software treats them like spaces. Double commas seem better, or perhaps double tildes "~~". — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't see a problem with automatic replacement of spaces before en dashes with nonbreaking spaces, but a simpler form of markup would also be nice—like Carl, I'd go for double tildes. JeffConrad (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A. di M., you can read about markup for hard spaces on some of the pages listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Noetica/.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise I was adding something that had been removed. I thought it was already a rule and was surprised to find it not written in MOS so I added it. If people dislike having to write out the non-breaking spaces themselves, we could always get AWB or a bot to fix it. Underscores would be a good suggestion if it weren't for people leaving them in wikilinks. Double tildes is also a good suggestion; however, it may play havoc with a lot of text that has already been innocently entered. Double commas would be a bit confusing in my opinion. I think MediaWiki automatically using non-breaking spaces as it does for French punctuation is the best way. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the point about underscores and wikilinks – Black hole, Black hole and Black_hole all go to the same article, and the only difference would be that under my proposal the last two would be rendered alike. Or did you mean external links? It might (or might not) be technically feasible to implement a convert-underscores-to-hard-spaces feature which wouldn't touch URLs. A. di M. (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, non-breaking spaces in wikilinks would not affect the workings of the link but it might look odd if something like List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe did not wrap. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks even weirder with underscores. So what's your point? A. di M. (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You said that you proposed an underscore for conversion into a non-breaking space. My point is that if people copy and paste wikilinks from a URL, which is often, the links will have underscores which will then be converted into non-breaking spaces which is bad. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the use of superlatives is discouraged in wikipedia articles. I am currently working on World Heritage Site articles and UNESCO, the designating body, often uses superlatives in their evaluation of sites (examples: "Zabid is of outstanding archaeological and historical interest..." or "The domestic architecture of Zabid is the most characteristic example...") How do I translate this into MOS-friendly language for use in wikipedia articles? Being the biggest, greates, best,... here is essential as it makes a site special and worthy of becoming a world heritage site. So I can't do without these superlatives. On the other hand writing all the time "according to UNESCO, the site is the biggest, greates, best,..." seems a bit cumbersome. What to do? bamse (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK does not discourage the use of superlatives. See also Category:Superlatives

.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. If I understand WP:PEACOCK correctly, I have to give credit to whoever used that superlative (UNESCO in my case). However for this list, writing in each cell of the "Description" column, "according to UNESCO, the site is the greatest..." is a bit cumbersome, isn't it. Would it be sufficient if I explained in the intro, that the "Description" column contains UNESCO's view? bamse (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

According to my understanding, an explanation in the introduction is sufficient. (I looked over your user subpage to which you linked, and "List of World Heritage Sites in Danger" should be "List of World Heritage Sites in danger" in mainspace, to conform to

saltpeter is preceded by a t. The possessive word island's has an apostrophe

. The word centuries is plural in 13th and 16th centuries.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will implement (almost) all of them. Why should "Danger" start with a small letter? It is a fixed expression/proper noun and UNESCO has it capitalized as well. bamse (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

After following that link, I now agree that Danger is correct with a capital D.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UNESCO just uses title case for titles. They don't call it that way in prose. Read the main text "...on the List of World Heritage in danger in..." so the title. Plus on Wikipedia, we us sentence case for our articles, thus it should be "List of World Heritages sites in danger".

books

} 20:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the page again, and I saw that danger is uncapitalized in prose above the map, but Danger is capitalized in prose under the heading "How to help?" beside the map. Apparently, uncapitalized danger is used as an

improper noun

, and capitalized Danger is used as part of the name of a list, subsidiary to List of World Heritage.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to use one for a thought tangent in a sentence. The kind of thing where commas or parentheses or the like would not be as good, since it is a bit more of an aside. But one that I want! I just hit a couple hyphens like on a typewriter, but I'm sure there's some fancy thing to actually get the long bar. ;) TCO (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• TCO, please do not insert double-hyphens. Tony (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Below the editing window, there are links to input various symbols. The en dash is first and the longer em dash is second under "Insert". Alternatively, you can use the html markup &ndash; or &mdash; to produce them. The last method depends on your operating system, but it is possible to directly type one. On a MacOS computer, the en dash is created using the keystroke option-hyphen and the em dash is option-shift-hyphen. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In Windows, hold down the Alternate (ALT) key, while typing "0150" for the en dash (–) or "0151" for the em dash (—). Curly single and double quotation marks are Alt+ 0145-0148, paragraph markers (¶) are Alt+ 0182, foreign-accented letters correspond with their ASCII codes beginning with (I think) Alt+ 0196 (or use the Character Map utility set to Courier New). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks fellows! I just used the one in the edit window. I'm on a Windows, so appreciate the added explanation, also.TCO (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't this information be snuck into the dash section in MoS? I get lots of questions from poor Windows users about this. Tony (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support this. When I was new to Wikipedia, it took a lot of doing to find and figure out individual codes. What we ought to have is a dedicated page listing them all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just tried it with someone on the the phone who has a full Windows keyboard, but to no avail. Perhaps it's only for some versions of the OS.Tony (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It’s worked for me with every version I’ve used since Windows 95 (I’m currently using XP). And it works with the five most common browsers. Was the person entering the numbers on the numeric keypad? JeffConrad (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to add a table somewhere showing the various methods other than the character links (i.e., Windows and Mac keyboard shortcuts and the HTML entities) for all the common non-ASCII characters? I suppose one problem might be agreeing on what are the “common” non-ASCII characters; to an extent, a large table would address this, but of course, beyond a certain size, the lookup becomes sufficiently difficult that the table is of questionable value.

I propose inserting words on reporting negative inventory. A negative inventory would be, "although the space station has a exercise center, it does not have a tennis court or a golf course..." "It never snows in Trinidad." "Poland has never impeached a President." That sort of thing. I realize from reading other attempts to change a policy that it will leave plenty of doors open for taking taking negative inventories which someone will perceive as vital and against his First Amendment Rights. It would say "it is discouraged" or something like that. "should be avoided" maybe.

Reasoning: An article would be quite lengthy if it devoted itself to negative inventory, which BTW takes maintenance like everything else. The more, the worse it is. Positive inventory is informative. Negative inventory less so and usually uninformative and even obvious. The latter is the problem. If it is obvious, where do you stop? "Never snows in the Congo either, etc." and on into other articles. So it saves space and saves maintenance and saves readers patience for positive information. Student7 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, the merit of including such information seems highly context-dependent, to the point where any guideline would essentially end up saying something rather pointless like "include it if it's relevant". 86.173.169.220 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

I agree with the IP user. It would end up basically meaning "only write in articles what needs to be written in articles". It's kind of just common sense. We cannot possibly make guidelines about absolutely everything. Sometimes we need to leave it up to others' judgement... which is often what these guidelines say anyway. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right.

WP:TOPIC should cover it implicitly. Student7 (talk

) 15:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And occasionally ("There are no

snakes in Iceland") a negative inventory is notable and mentioned in reliable sources; if so, it is on topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

20:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No snakes in Ireland either: apparently St Patrick kicked 'em all out a long time ago. A. di M. (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with a bit more MoS knowledge please take a look

) 03:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, prepositions should not be capitalized in title case. However, some styles make exceptions for prepositions that are five letters long or longer. So there is a case for capitalizing "through" but "thru" is too short. Leave it lowercase. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In the current revision of the article, the representation of season ranges (e.g. "1969–70–1974–75") appears awkward to me. I can think of two solutions:

1. Have the guideline state that disjunctive en dashes are also spaced if either item contains a dash: "1969–70 – 1974–75"
2. Use "to" instead of a dash between seasons: "1969–70 to 1974–75"

Any recommendations? —LOL ^T/_C 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What about simply 1969–75?

Adabow (talk · contribs

) 10:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons are supposed to use a slash, so you'd get 1969/70–1974/75 which is a tad less awkward. If you don't like it, use "to". A. di M. (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that slash convention established somewhere? Is it specific to basketball? Could cause mayhem at WP:FOOTY Kevin McE (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I assume this is derived from

WP:YEAR: I don't think my fellow football/soccer fans are going to like it, but I'll mention it and see what happens... Kevin McE (talk

) 11:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Adabow: The problem with that is it's unclear whether the range starts at the end of the 1968–69 season or the beginning of the 1969–70 season. I know that's the format used in NBA infoboxes, but I don't think that's what we want in the statistical leaders tables because space isn't an issue for them.

A. di M.: In North American basketball and hockey, dashes are always used, and our WikiProjects have been following suit since the beginning. Is there a compelling argument for changing that? Perhaps "to" is the best solution. —LOL ^T/_C 11:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough... So I'd suggest solution 2 above. A. di M. (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

At Canadian Football Hall of Fame this problem was dealt with by using a comma: 1952–55, 1957–62. See Gerry James. Modal Jig (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That comma is used to separate two year ranges, but I'm looking for a way to represent one range of seasons. —LOL ^T/_C 12:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "1969 – 1975" Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was that, it would have to be "1969–1975". McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, Adabow's suggestion may be a good solution if the year text links to season pages, e.g. "

WP:EGG, but its understandability may be worth it. —LOL ^T/_C

17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's not even an EGG if you put a note explaining the convention at the top: the listed years link to the first and last NBA season played. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS presently provides that endashes be set off with spaces in disjunctive titles, such as "Florida – Florida State rivalry," when there are two or more words with spaces in between in either or both of the disjointed items. This same rule does not apply when there are only single words in both of the disjointed items, such as "Florida–Miami rivalry," when no set-off spaces are employed. Apart from the fact that this is a nonsensical rule, it makes Wikipedia look like the Gang That Can't Type Straight when multiple endash-disjointed article titles appear in "See also" lists and other similar WP formulations. Notwithstanding the fact that I am sure that Wiki nit-pickers have picked this one to death in the past, I am asking for a new consensus to eliminate the set-off spaces surrounding endashes in article titles and similar situations best embodied in the example "Florida – Florida State rivalry." Thank you for your interest to this trivial, but annoying point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you'd like to see "Florida–Florida State rivalry" instead? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support, as I have before, and fr the same reason; it makes no sense to me for constructs that are grammatically equivalent to have different rules governing the usage of the punctuation in them.oknazevad (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"I am sure that Wiki nit-pickers have picked this one to death in the past" Yup. Pick pick pick. Art LaPella (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No (aka oppose) per Tony, who will come in and explain why this is undesirable. You can browse Art LaPella's links in the meantime.

books

} 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rationale is for the rules in place, but I think the reasoning is something like as follows. "Florida–Miami rivalry" essentially means "a rivalry between Florida and Miami" and "Florida – Florida State rivalry" means "a rivalry between Florida and Florida State." However, "Florida–Florida State rivalry" (with no spaces setting off the endash) might suggest "a State rivalry between Florida and Florida" (whatever that might mean) since the second "Florida" appears to have a greater graphical connection to the first "Florida" than it does to "State". Jweiss11 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Jweiss, your logic is exactly right. The whole point of using the endash in the first instance is to convey a disjunction that is not necessarily conveyed by the use of hyphen. The use of set-off spaces around the endash when one or both of the disjointed items have more than one word is redundant. Might as well use a hyphen if you're going to include the set-off spaces. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed many times; it seems to me that the purpose of using an en dash (Florida–Florida State) rather than a hyphen (Florida-Florida State) is to make clear that we mean Florida vs. Florida State. As previously discussed, the preponderance of published sources seem to agree. Moreover, as has been mentioned many times but possible lost in the shuffle, use of spaced en dashes for disjunction as well as replacement for unspaced em dashes blurs the distinction between two very different situations. But I tend to agree with the status quo on full dates. JeffConrad (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Jeff, I have sitting on my desk the current edition of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style (the best short guide to English language style and punctuation), the Chicago Style Manual (for graduate student master's theses and doctoral dissertations), the Blue Book (17th ed.) (for law students and lawyers's publications), and my 35-year-old copy of my eighth-grade edition of Warriner's English Language Grammar and Composition (standard multi-grade textbook when public schools still taught grammar). Not one of them has any remotely related precedent for the set-off spaces around the endash per

WP:MOS

. Frankly, this usage is without any significant precedent in authoritative American usage and appears that several Wikipedians adopted this usage and have defended it because they think it better conveys the disjunctive meaning that is already inherent in the use of the endash in the first place. The use of the set-off spaces is redundant and adds no additional punctuation clue for the reader.

That having been said, like you, I am willing to support the limited use of the set-off spaces around the endash in full date spans like those in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph of deceased persons' WP biographies (i.e. "June 6, 1944 – January 20, 2009"). The generalized use of the set-off spaces in article titles needs to get tossed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have in front of me The Elements of Style (3rd and 4th eds), the Chicago Manual of Style (13th through 16th eds), the APA Publication Manual (6th ed), Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers & Editors, Words into Type (3rd ed), and the Perrin Writer’s Guide and Index to English (3rd ed), and none of them spaces en dashes under any conditions, including dates (though in a quick search I can't find an example of a range of full dates (e.g., 4 August 2008–2 December 2010). I don't suggest that these references are dispositive, but following their lead would hardly put one in bad company. JeffConrad (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Elements of Style "the best short guide to English language style and punctuation"? Among other things, they discourage the passive voice even though they cannot tell it from a hole in the ground and they make demonstrably false claims about what "nearly all careful writers" do.[28] A. di M. (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't suggest that The Elements of Style is the best short guide; however, though parts of it are dated, it’s nonetheless a useful reference, and in terms of bang for length, it may still be near the top. JeffConrad (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just "dated". The article I linked to shows that (among other things) many constructions it discourages as "avoided by good writers" had been in wide use among successful writers since long before it was published. That's not being "dated", that's being factually incorrect. (That's completely irrelevant here, as I agree with unspacing dashes when used to form a modifier out of a pair of nouns.) A. di M. (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In terms of inscrutability of reputation, it must be at the top. This short book is bristling with spectacularly silly pronouncements about prose, and why it is still taken seriously by sane people is a great mystery. Please read the excellent PDF to which A. di M. kindly linked before saying more about Strunk and White's silly book. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. For counting purpose and determining consensus, I support this change per my nom and my comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. For reasons stated above. JeffConrad (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest something very specific. I've proposed this before but it's never really received discussion: I propose that we replace the initial list in the en dash section with:

The remainder of that section would be left unchanged, including the rule on non-breaking spaces, en dashes in page names, and en dashes compared to minus signs. Thoughts? Ozob (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Fixed an omission. Ozob (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Move "In this role, en dashes are never spaced" from the end of the paragraph to the second sentence of that paragraph. Ozob (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with eliminating the current item 3 in the list,

“Optionally, in compounds whose elements contain hyphens or spaces (pre–World War II technologies, non–government-owned corporations).”

How would this be done without en dashes? JeffConrad (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to include that but forgot. Fixed. Ozob (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Ozob's version. A. di M. (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed changes are to swap items 2 and 3 in the current list, to add "If either endpoint of the range contains a space, insert spaces on either side of the en dash (5 January 1919 – 21 January 1919, 10 W – 100 kW). Otherwise, do not insert spaces" to the first item, and to add "In this role, en dashes are never spaced" to item 3 in the list. Did I miss something?

If that's right, then I think the first two changes are uncontroversial, as they don't seem to change current practice (and in fact clarify it.) It seems to me that it is too soon after the last discussion for us to go back through the third point again, though. This was a fairly thorough review of essentially the same idea, and there was no consensus to change then. Is there a reason to think consensus has changed? The instructions at the top of this page ask that we not raise the same discussions repeatedly without good reason. If we are going to have to discuss this again I strongly suggest separating that point from the others as it is the controversial one. Mike Christie (talk - library) 12:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why has the wording "to indicate disjunction", and the logical grouping of three bullets underneath it, been removed?
• While some house styles allow that odd usage of en dash then space(s) to avoid multiple hyphens in items such as "pre–World War II technologies" (it can't help but draw attention to itself), just why you'd want to change "non-government-owned corporations" into "non–government-owned corporations" is beyond me. Where is that mandated, and what malady does it avoid?

So you would prefer “pre-World-War-II technologies” to “pre–World War II technologies”? I must confess I’m not that familiar with BrEng style guides, but this flies in the face of just about everything I’ve ever read an AmEng guides (such as the half dozen I listed above). Let’s take another example from American jurisprudence: courts often refer to a “nonpublic forum”, a place that is not a traditional public forum for the exercise of free speech. The term arguably was ill chosen, because it suggests at first glance a forum that isn't public. Using “non-public forum” wouldn’t help; “non–public forum”, though perhaps still inelegant, at least would have conveyed the intended meaning. And I can’t think of any other succinct way of writing it. I could give many other similar examples. JeffConrad (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In this role, en dashes are never spaced." This comes immediately after examples of hyphen usage, and the bizarre dash–hyphen hybrid: it is confusing. If it is intended to refer to independent elements, we had this out only recently in a much larger debate, and it was resolved that where either element contains an internal space, the en dash should also be spaced. Do we have to go through this all over again, Ozob? "New York–London flight" (from York to London, new?), and the ungainly squashing of the internal words in items such as "the United States–Federal Republic accord"? User:Noetica provided convincing evidence on the basis of external sources that the status quo should remain. Strong oppose. Tony (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I spent about three hours reading the last several RfC debates regarding the use of endashes and off-set spaces for endashes per WP:MOS. Personally, I have reached three conclusions: (1) in standard American usage and style, the consensus of authority is against your position and does not support the use of endashes with set-off spaces; and (2) the meaning of "New York–London flight" is no less clear than that of "New York – London flight"; and (3) the utterly meaningless distinction between endashes with set-offs when one of the disjointed items has two or more words and one or more spaces renders a confusing and graphically contradictory inconsistency in lists of multiple Wikipedia articles (e.g., "Florida – Florida State football rivalry," "Florida–Tennessee football rivalry," "Miami–Florida football rivalry," and "Miami – Florida State football rivalry") that most reasonably intelligent Wikipedia readers will fail to understand. If you and a vocal minority of other Wikipedia editors are going to insist on maintaining the old consensus by relying primarily on the unstated idea that a minority of current British and Commonwealth style and usage authorities should govern the use of the endash with set-off spaces under these circumstances (and not even a majority of those authorities at that), and thus ignore the overwhelming majority of American style and usage authorities, then I suggest this point needs to be treated as an issue of British versus American style and usage, and predominantly American articles and their authors should be permitted to use the standard style and usage of over 300 million native American-English speakers and writers (roughly 70% of the native English-speaking world). If not, perhaps, we should open a new RfC debate on placing the month before the day in all Wikipedia dates because the overwhelming majority of native English-speaking persons (i.e. Americans) write their dates that way. (That's sarcasm, BTW, not a serious proposal.) The logic in having a minority of British style and usage authorities govern the standard practice of the overwhelming majority of American style and usage authorities is just plain bonkers, no more or less goofy than having Americans dictate how Commonwealth persons should write their dates.

By the way, IMHO, it's a bit over-the-top for you to complain about re-opening this debate again, when you are well aware that this style point flies in the face of what the majority of American writing professionals learned and use in their own professional publications on a daily basis. You are going to find that this debate is re-opened again and again and again, by different individual editors over time, simply because it contradicts the overwhelming majority of American style and usage authorities. If you don't enjoy the debate, you might want to reconsider your position of fighting to maintain a status quo that is not supported by a clear consensus of current editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And to reiterate my support for one limited exception, I do support set-off spaces for the endash in parenthetical date spans, e.g. "(June 6, 1944 – January 20, 2009), such as those used in the lead paragraphs of Wikipedia biographies. However, the use of such constructions in prose is awkward, and should be discouraged by WP:MOS. In prose, the endash should invariably be replaced a preposition, rendering greater clarity and a more elegant product. Looking at the examples provided by others above, I can see how this date range exception might be generalized for application to parenthetical ranges other than dates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this issue myself, but can you explain why you feel Tony is in the minority here? The last RfC (here) had 18 !votes in favour of Tony's position, to 13 against. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and Dirtlawyer, aggressive arguments about Americans having 2/3 of native speakers (it's actually much less when India et al. are counted) never go down well here. It's certainly not an engvar issue. Tony (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, India only had 226,449 native English speakers in 2001. According to English language#Geographical distribution, 215 million out of 375 million native English speakers (57%) are from the US. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China, anyway? A. di M. (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rarely have I seen so much sophistry, rhetoric and bad statistics adamantly employed in the support of so trivial a point. (For clarity, I am referring to the past discussions regarding so-called "spaced endashes.") Let me address these points one at a time: (1) The total population figures for the United States provided above are at least 10 years out of date. The current estimated U.S. population is closer to 310 million, not 256 million. Likewise, the number of first-language English speakers in America is 40 to 50 million more than stated above, i.e. it's closer to 255 million native English speakers in America, not 215 million. (2) Among the minority of Americans who speak a language other than English as their first language, when they do write in English it is undoubtedly true that they use standard American English punctuation, grammar and style, not British English or another other form of Commonwealth English. (3) What is the price of tea in China? I don't have a clue. But I do know that we have casually disregarded the overwhelming majority of American style guides on this topic, and what appears to be a majority or at least a plurality of British style guides, too. (4) The number of first-language English speakers in India is trivial. There is a far greater number of first-language English speakers in the Philippines, who, given historic political ties, invariably use American English. (5) Saying it's not an Engvar issue does not make it so. Virtually all of the widely recognized American style and usage guides do not follow the spaced endash convention that is the present WP:MOS status quo. Among the admitted minority of style and usage guides that do support the endash with set-off spaces, virtually all of them are British or Commonwealth sources. You've got virtually no support among major American sources. (Sorry, Texas State University's style guide does not cut the mustard.) Ironically, the British style guides that support your position are an admitted minority even in Britain. (6) Go back and review the geographic distribution of supporters and opponents of the elimination of the spaced endash (with defined exceptions, such as ranges) in past RfC discussions on topic, and you will find an interesting, if imperfect pattern. More American editors support eliminating the spaced endash (with defined exceptions), and more British and Commonwealth editors appear to favor keeping it (at least in the absence of a clearly defined alternative). That shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Americans who write for a living grew up using American style guides. (7) I chuckle at the irony inherent in the use of "aggressive" to describe my arguments on point. Tony, your advocacy of your position in past discussion is equally deserving of that characterization, if not more so. If I were an amateur psychologist, I would suggest that "transference" might be in play here.

Now, are we ready to discuss the substance on the basis of facts or are we going to attempt to brow-beat our opponents in this discussion, confuse the issues, and divide and conquer in order to get our way?

Were you the editor who proposed enforcing AmEng in all articles?Tony (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I hope that was an attempt at the good-natured humor for which you Aussies are famous. In answer to your question, no, I am not the said editor. I am an American attorney, with four degrees, who attended four different universities, including Oxford for a year while I was a law student. In addition to my legal education (J.D. and LL.M.), I also have undergraduate and master's degrees in economics. I am intimately familiar with academic and professional writing in the United States and the United Kingdom. Not in a million years would I ever propose universally enforcing American-specific style and grammar points on British and Commonwealth editors who do good work on British and Commonwealth topics. When I occasionally dabble in those subject, I always honor the Engvar conventions applicable to particular articles and stand ready to be corrected if I transgress in ignorance. Learning the differences among the different English traditions is part of the fun. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony, let me respond to your style objections point by point:

• I believe that my proposal is more clear without the phrase "indicates disjunction". In my proposal, there are two kinds of disjunctive en dashes: Those which appear in ranges and those which do not. These are discussed separately because they should be spaced differently. The old bullets have been logically grouped together into two numbered items, each of which has a clear and simple spacing rule. I believe that grouping these numbered items together as "disjunctive" would be more confusing than separating them.
• Regarding the "pre–World War II technologies" bullet, all I intend to do is to keep that bullet as it is currently. It's currently in the MoS, so it's currently in my proposal.
• I think it's a good idea to move "In this role, en dashes are never spaced" so that it is closer to the start of that paragraph, so I've made that move.

Regarding your objections to this discussion: The consensus of most style manuals is against the MoS's current instructions, which is why I continue to believe that the MoS should be changed. Noetica found only a small number of style manuals in support of the MoS's position. Our prior discussions have not solved the issue; we made some progress, (for example, it's been determined that consensus is against totally forbidding spaced en dashes) but we all got tired and stopped. Someone else started this discussion, and I had a proposal that I thought would move the discussion forward. Let's focus on the proposal. I think it's a good one, and there are several editors here who have already expressed support for less en dash spacing. Tony, what would you say to them? Besides your usual "New York–London flight" objection, since Dirtlawyer1 and I both find "New York – London flight" no more perspicuous? Ozob (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ozob, my objection to this discussion is not on the merits of the argument. We have been over this ground only nine months ago. I don't doubt your sincerity (nor Dirtlawyer1's); but these debates take a lot of potentially valuable energy from Wikipedians and they tend to generate heat rather than light. The header on this talk page asks editors to look for evidence that the consensus has changed before restarting debates; is there new evidence? Multiple previously uninvolved editors who are all on your side of the debate? A change of mind on the part of some of the previous participants? I'm not aware of anything like that. What has changed since March to make you feel it's worth absorbing the time of many editors in this discussion? Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I started this RfC discussion and I am a newly involved editor on this topic. Within the predominantly American university and sports projects upon which I work, there has been persistent, if minor annoyance with the spaced endashes in article titles. Frankly, the current MOS practice makes not one damn bit of logical sense to us. Many, many more American editors would find the current goofy practice objectionable, but they don't troll the MOS discussion pages. And, if you re-read the most recent discussion to which you referred me, I believe that you will find that the discussion was so disorganized and so chaotic that it arrived at a status quo position by default. Given that the overwhelming weight of American authority on this topic is against the use of spaced endashes, I am willing to pursue this point vigorously with an attorney's zeal and sense of organization. My ultimate default position is, fine, whatever, if certain Commonwealth editors want to impose a minority British practice on all of Wikipedia, then this should be treated as an Engvar issue and American editors should be able to follow the overwhelming majority of American style guides.

I have a client meeting and a Monday 9 a.m. hearing for which I must prepare this afternoon, and I am pressed for time now. In the next 24 hours, however, I will prepare clear examples of each instance of the present practice in context, so every concerned editor can examine the practice in context, and we can express our opinions and vote on each instance. After we decide in which instances to accept or reject the practice, then we can craft a rule of general application that might gain a clear and overwhelming consensus of all concerned editors. Fair enough?

Ozob, rather than posting another alternative re-write that the proponents of the status quo will immediately begin to shred with the usual parade of horribles (i.e. the various straw men previously posited), how about we work through the major examples on point on a user page first? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ozob, you know perfectly well that the style guides take various lines on this matter; User:Noetica, by request, wrote an opinion that provided an initial survey. I am surprised you have not mentioned this yet. Tony (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony, and you know perfectly well that the only Engvar jurisdiction where this practice is common and may have a majority of style guides behind it is Australia. A minority of British authorities provide support, and an overwhelming majority of American authorities do not. Let's not continue to confuse this issue as "some authorities support the practice, and others don't, so we should pick and choose what we think best." Let's acknowledge reality: the WP:MOS status quo is a minority practice throughout the Anglosphere, with MAYBE one exception. It's the overwhelmingly minority position in the United States, and the minority position in Britain, which you have cavalierly dismissed as unimportant. Think, man: when you adopt a practice in contravention to how most WP editors write, you are never going to get universal support for your position and it's simply going to generate repeated controversy. That's not "reform" properly understood; that's change for the sake of change because I like change.

Must run to meet with one of the clients who pays my bills. Have fun without me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A call for due process and due caution

[Please place comments after this post, and do not interrupt it. Much of the above cannot be followed because of interruptions.]

I am

. I am irritated and inconvenienced by this, but I will not sit by and watch the present abuse of process by an editor who should know better.

Dirtlawyer1, have you respected the principles outlined at

? They include the following (and I underline for emphasis):

• Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to
  talk to the other parties involved
  .

Forgive me; I have not monitored this page closely enough. When in recent months did you raise the matter for constructive discussion here?

• If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant
  WikiProject
  .

Isn't this matter both complex and technical? It is in my experience.

And then, in posting the actual RFC at this talkpage, the procedure outlined at

includes these points:

1. To add an additional category, [...]
2. Note that the "policy" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, [...]

The matters of style addressed at

are also designated guidelines, used in the development of featured articles and in improving the standard throughout the encyclopedia. The guideline to which you propose changes also has implications for naming articles. Why did you not add "policy" as an additional category?

Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. [...] If you feel as though you cannot describe the dispute neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you.

Neutral? The latter part of your statement, with my underlining:

[...] Apart from the fact that this is a nonsensical rule, it makes Wikipedia look like the Gang That Can't Type Straight when multiple endash-disjointed article titles appear in "See also" lists and other similar WP formulations. Notwithstanding the fact that I am sure that Wiki nit-pickers have picked this one to death in the past, I am asking for a new consensus to eliminate the set-off spaces surrounding endashes in article titles and similar situations best embodied in the example "Florida – Florida State rivalry." Thank you for your interest to this trivial, but annoying point.

That poisoned effusion also appears as the notice published to the wider community. Which part of the word neutral eludes you, Dirtlawyer1?

You say above:

I am willing to pursue this point vigorously with an attorney's zeal and sense of organization.

Good for you. But your lawyerly willingness to select data that suit your case is also evident. So is your more general partisanship, and your overwhelmingly adversarial approach. Why should we agree that the number of US native speakers of English is decisive, as you assert? You select figures that you hope will support you; but you ignore the fact that English and Hindi are both official languages of India, and that English is spoken by a huge proportion of the Indian population as a second language (let alone the many who have it as a third or lesser language). Did you think to introduce the relevant facts or figures here? Did you consider the increasing role of English as the global language? Did you pause to reflect that China will soon have more speakers of English (as a second language, and language of international commerce) than your country has? Did you think which version of Wikipedia all of those anglophone communities turn to in droves?

American style guides are incredibly insular in their coverage of punctuation, and Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) has hegemony within the would-be hegemon. You say that you have not seen the current MOS rule for en dashes in US style guides? Not surprising! US ways with the en dash slavishly follow CMOS, and have for decades; and CMOS is mostly innocent of practice in The Rest of the World. (Yes Dorothy: there is a rest of the world.) I will not descend to unpick CMOS's latest stupidities and provincial deliverances, which in the 16th edition show no more sign of stability or good order than earlier editions' attempts at rationality. Just remember: the world does not all respect CMOS as you might; and much of the world looks to British ways for guidance.

That said, it is not a matter of following any guidance blindly. No authority outside Wikipedia comes close to our own sophistication, as we adapt to the challenges of collaborative online writing, viewable in many different formats in many different linguistic communities. CMOS 16's long-overdue effort at this is worse than useless. I know: I collect these guides, and study them.

But next, Dirtlawyer1, we turn to consider your own supposed knowledge of established guides and their verdicts. I had to smile when I saw you advocating Strunk and White, discounted by linguists and editors far and wide as opinionated at best, and sheer invention at worst. But you don't even grasp the guidelines in that travesty of a guide. Look at these sentences from your own page (my underlining):

I firmly believe that all would-be Wikipedia authors and editors should periodically re-read Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. Others will judge the University of Florida and its alumni by the Wikipedia articles regarding our alma mater. Choose your words carefully—spelling, grammar and style do matter!

Strunk and White have this as their second guideline (and have had it from the earliest editions):

In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.

That's the serial comma, which you do not use even as you appeal to Strunk and White as an authority (see the sentence I underlined, lacking a comma after grammar).

I will not waste my time in once more working through the details of the proposed change. (Does anyone here doubt that I could do so with devastating accuracy?) This time, I simply conclude that the RFC is tainted by flawed and biased presentation from the start, and deserves to be summarily dismissed. Again this forum is beset by partisan forces, who seek aggressively to push a style simply because it is the one most familiar to them. The rest of us want to work together: selecting without bias from the stock of available options, without favour and certainly without fear of spurious appeals to even more spurious authority. If we merely react to present stimuli, without taking the longer view and thinking new thoughts, we are sphex indeed.

Wind up this RFC, and discuss all such things another time – globally, collegially, intelligently, cautiously, and with Wikipedia's unprecedented circumstances in mind.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the substance of the argument above, I must point out that phrases like "Yes, Dorothy" remind me of what this page was like in 2009. Art LaPella (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Noetica, I have just returned home from a very long day of working for fees to solve the problems of others. As I often do at the end of my day, I checked my Wikipedia watch list to see what amusing tidbits of hearsay, gossip, unsourced opinion and outright vandalism had been inserted into Wikipedia articles in the past twelve hours. Instead, much to my surprise, pleasure and amusement, I found your ad hominem response above, no doubt moderated and abbreviated in the spirit of global collegiality so eloquently advocated. While I do appreciate your devastatingly accurate critique of my user page (and my own personal failure to adhere uniformly to the serial comma guideline espoused by the opinionated Prof. Strunk and E.B. White), I would be sincerely grateful if you would grant me the courtesy to speak on my own behalf and the miniscule WP:MOS changes that I advocate. When the sun rises here in my sleepy Southern time zone, I shall return to correct the several misapprehensions of my provincial worldview, reactionary partisanship and advocacy of spurious authority, as somewhat promiscuously mis-characterized by your obviously irritable and inconvenient essay.

Good night, professor. May you find peace in the arms of Morpheus.

Oh, by the way, if my aged memory still serves, I do recall that Dorothy was actually from Kansas. Not Georgia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Art, you say: "I must point out that phrases like 'Yes, Dorothy' remind me of what this page was like in 2009." Perhaps that's understandable. When adherents to one country's practice seek to have it dominate English Wikipedia (a worldwide effort by and for speakers of English, a world language), that is a provocation. When they eulogise American "authorities" such as CMOS or (heaven help us all) Strunk and White, we feel dismay that the challenge of the new is unmet; and then sometimes our own behaviour is less than perfect.

Dirtlawyer1, your credentialist, élitist, and US-chauvinist appeal to our meaner sentiments is ill-conceived and ineffective. What are we to make of your spending your days "working for fees to solve the problems of others"? It is completely irrelevant to the unselfish and unpaid work done here, to promote something new and wonderful in the world. Yes, some of my remarks above are ad hominem; but so is the self-promotion to which I respond. You elevate yourself so spectacularly to view, to advance a cause? Then expect a response in rotten tomatoes. I am saying that your RFC is unworthy of serious consideration from the start. Do you imagine that your vaunted qualifications and experience put you above reproach for your procedural insult to this page, or for your meretricious statistical evidence and flaky sources? Imagine again.

Of course Dorothy was from Kansas. Who said differently, or sought to refer to your own minuscule situation on the map? Dorothy had her eyes opened to new insights and broader vistas, following a knock to the head. Good luck, in your own case.

Dirtlawyer1, I have said all I need to, and I have answered your first answers. From them it is clear: there is nothing more I should exert myself to say. So bear in mind that I will not answer anything else that is said. I'm going back to not wasting time in such futilities.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, spaces around en-dashes (except those used as makeshift em-dashes) look quite unfamiliar to me even I've never been to America, or in fact any further west than Inishmore. A. di M. (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"I will not waste my time in once more working through the details of the proposed change. (Does anyone here doubt that I could do so with devastating accuracy?)"—Me. Ozob (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Noetica, your post leaves me with the impression that you want to spend your time complaining about American style guides and other things that you don't like. While some of what you say about Dirtlawyer is true, your time and ours would be better spent "working through the details of the proposed change" than by attacking the person who proposed it. Let's see some of that Noetica-brand "devastating accuracy" put to good use. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Darkfrog, virtually none of Noetica's mischaracterizations of my policy positions or my personal perspective are true or even remotely representative of my background and outlook on global English. Contrary to the ad hominem polemic above, I am very much in favor of an evolving global family of English, but one that validates regional and national variations, not imposes artificial uniformity in the name of "reform." That having been said briefly in my own defense, Noetica's criticisms of my failure to (a) formulate a neutral RfC, and (b) adhere to established RfC procedure, are true. For that reason, and because Mike Christie and Ozob have suggested in good faith that a reformulated RfC on topic would be a more productive means to reaching a real, current and truly collegial consensus upon which reasonable editors may agree, I am withdrawing this RfC and reserving the right to resubmit a reformulated RfC prepared in cooperation with other concerned editors. I expect that we will revisit this topic in a new RfC (one which imposes a measure of organization and considered options) in the next ten to fourteen days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal and reformulation

I've exchanged a couple of emails with Dirtlawyer1 and I understand he and a couple of editors feel the RfC could be better organized, in addition to which Noetica's point that the phrasing is not neutral is a fair comment. I suggest a rapid close to this RfC; if Dirtlawyer1 and others feel they can formulate a version that is worth consideration then a new RfC can be opened. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I have withdrawn this RfC in the collegial spirit of your suggestion, and I expect we will soon revisit this topic in the manner discussed immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Endash sandbox

I have created User:Ozob/Endash sandbox for those of us who are interested in discussing changes to the current en dash rules. Everyone is welcome! Ozob (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Standard usage or make up new rules?

It seems like this debate, like many on Wikipedia boils down to whether we try to ACTIVELY change English grammar. Like the species capitalizers. English is NOT perfectly precise. If you are communicating and there is a REAL danger of confusion (and there is not with FL-FL State), that is the context is NOT sufficient to resolve the ambiguity, than you just reword there. But otherwise inventing new rules of typography doesn't make sense. Wiki should follow the language, not try to actively change it. Note, if it's some web, hyperlink thingie fine. We can plow new ground there. But deciding to do dashes different from the vast majority of style guides, becuase we just don't like standard usage, is wrong. We should not have some group here deciding that the NYT and Chicago Style Manual, etc. are wrong! The problem is that readers or writers who follow standard usage will be thrown for a loop when we try to morph the language. Might as well try to change all the spelling to be phonetic. And kvetching about what percent of readers are American when the actual issue is "do we not like the imprecision of standard usage and want to try to change it, against normal usage"? is not addressing the question.

P.s. I admit to not having read the whole kerfuffle. (Don't ban me please.)

TCO (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree on following established usage (or at least a reasonable preponderance thereof) unless there is an overpowering reason to do otherwise. The more we deviate from normal practice, the more difficult we make it for editors and readers alike. And the more time we waste arguing about it. Relying on

WP:RS to style as well as content. JeffConrad (talk

) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TCO that Wikipedia should reflect English standards, not create new ones or push any linguistic agenda. I'd also like to assure Conrad that following sources for English standards, whether they're style guides or common use, is pretty much standard procedure around here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It never has been. If it had been, we would cite such sources, and would acknowledge when style guides disagree.

Standard practice around here, when we're lucky, is for some Language Reformer to come in waving the one style guide that agrees with him, and insist we make everybody follow it because it is the Way English is Going. Then he and his best friend write it in, and write bots to enforce it, and when inevitably people show up (one at a time, usually) to complain, he and his friend object, so there is "no consensus to remove". Lather, rinse, repeat.

When we aren't lucky, the good souls don't have a source, and make up their arguments off the top of their heads. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See, I do consider that following a source. That particular case is not the best way to do it, but it does constitute doing it. I consider citing sources to be necessary for articles. On a discussion page, it is acceptable to just say, "I found this in CMoS 16th" or "The NASA style guide says this."

But yes, "the way English is going" falls under

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Besides, this is an electronic encyclopedia. If the change in question does happen, we can always just update the MoS then. We do have a problem in that groups of editors can get styles that they like required and styles that they don't like banned for no other reason but that they like/don't like them. But would it be possible or practical to create a system of requiring sources or a preponderance of sources in order to have a rule placed on the MoS? Darkfrog24 (talk

) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is following a source; but it is following a source without verifiability or consideration of the balance between sources. If we did that, even part of the time, MOS would become much more useful.

It also frequently ignores the intent of the source; many style guides say "do X", when a more complete statement would be "usually do X, but also remember that this may conflict with other rules." That's ideal for a journalist who needs a decision before deadline, but

we don't have one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I’d certainly like to see a rule follow the preponderance of widely accepted English sources, though like anything else here, we might have a hard time achieving consensus. I would agree that, for the most part, we do follow

WP:ILIKEIT, as Darkfrog24 mentions above. It is far from clear to me that some of these rules reflect anything close to consensus (as illustrated by the discussion of quotation marks on the register for the project page). The thrust of my comment above is that we should dispense with the egregious exceptions. At the same time, I agree with PMAnderson that sometimes sources conflict, and there also are sometimes cases that no source seems to cover (e.g., en dashes indicating a range of complete dates), so it’s sometimes a judgment call, as Strunk and White have long indicated. JeffConrad (talk

) 01:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as how our MoS should be written, I overwhelmingly prefer "Do X" over "X is done." "X is done" is a description of what happens in the English language and would be appropriate, say, for a linguistic study. Considering that the MoS often requires things that are not standard English, "X is done" can be flat-out false. "Do X" makes no claim about how common the practice in question is outside of Wikipedia. I guess that's my ILIKEIT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

; a single editor is demanding that we call Japanese entertainers whatever they call themselves in Western letters, whether any English-speaker has ever used it or not - on the basis of some quite odd views about the special nature of the Japanese language.

Looking at

}}s.

Does anybody but a single editor support the present form of

00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, most of this stuff seems to pre-date his first edit. [29]. I don't think it's reasonable to call this page which has existed since 2003 and edited by dozens as being an essay. How is different from any other part of the MOS that makes it an essay? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much of it is untouched. If he would cooperate in acknowledging that his novel stuff is novel, and that the stuff that is uniformly condemned on

WT:AT should be qualified, there would be no poblem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing Pmanderson? Just because I'm the only person who's actively participating in a discussion against your proposed changes to the manual of style (and participating in an edit war to boot) does not give you the right to completely throw out a manual of style that has existed for years and tag it as an essay.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't insist on it being an essay. As long as it doesn't flatly declare X when X is warmly disputed on its own talk page and elsewhere, I'm fine. Edits on guidelines should attempt to reflect consensus; and when there isn't one, they should say so - or be silent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But why bother to do that while a consensus is being formed concerning this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the consensus (which contains at least Born2cycle, Jpatokal, and myself - and others at WT:AT) is that you are wrong. But the page expresses your solitary opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So discussions have been made so opinions of those who primarily work with Japanese subject matters other than myself can weigh in.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In cases like this if you give the weight to anyone's opinion, it probably should go to those with broad experience applying policy and guidelines in various areas of WP, not those who "primarily work with one subject matter". It's about giving more weight to the broader view over those probably biased to see it from one perspective. I'm just saying this in general terms since you implied maybe preference should be given "those who primarily work with Japanese subject matters", and, though I often disagree with PMA (including with his tagging this MOS page as an essay, and engaging in this edit war), I know he has that broad perspective, experience and knowledge. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but rather than read through a giant discussion at

03:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, that's exactly the case, yes. If the fans romanize the names (X) and the entertainers romanize the names (Y), then who's right? DS (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples provided by Ryulong via IRC:

<Ryulong> Ichirou Mizuki


<Ryulong> He is commonly known as "Ichiro Mizuki"

<Ryulong> However his official website and liner notes in his albums use "Ichirou Mizuki"

<Ryulong> Shin-ichiro Miki

<Ryulong> sometimes "Shin'ichiro"

<Ryulong> sometimes "Shinichiro"

<Ryulong> his official website uses "Shin-ichiro"

<Ryulong> Romi Park

<Ryulong> most people call her "Romi Paku" even though she's Korean and her surname is only approximated as "Paku" in Japanese

<Ryulong> Rica Matsumoto is sometimes written as "Rika Matsumoto"

... so that should explain things, I guess. Bleh, I've had enough of this and decline to participate further in this dispute. DS (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with

Cody ChesnuTT despite the capitalised version being the official name and the name most websites use. So I think in the case of the Japanese thing, we should be using their official names. I don't see how this really applies to common English usage since only a tiny minority of English-speakers will have actually heard of these people and I'm sure most people will use the name that is on their albums. McLerristarr | Mclay1

03:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't "make up our own spelling and capitalisation rules"; but if a clear majority of reliable English-language sources refers to the person in a different way than they call themselves, we should follow the sources (

Francesco Petrarca). A. di M. (talk

) 11:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But those sources must have made up the spellings. If I became famous and lots of sources spelt my name as "Mat" rather than "Matt", despite my album covers and websites all displaying the name "Matt", I would expect Wikipedia to use what is correct and officially a legal trademark if that is the case. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A. di M., this is not about historic figures like Petrarch but modern individuals who have a name that is spelled slightly differently than the common usage (in unreliable English sources) and sometimes the standard methods of romanizing the Japanese language. It's just a difference in one or two letters because the fan community who eventually become the only reference for reliable sources spell it differently than the artist, celebrity, etc. does.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In this edit to "Treasure trove", an editor changed the spelling of the word favour to favor, stating that since the particular section of the article deals with United States law, US spelling conventions should be followed in that section alone. Really? I would have thought that consistency within the article as a whole is more important. I don't consider this a big deal, but it seems like a rather eccentric interpretation of the Manual of Style. Thoughts? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit was wrong. The whole article must be consistent. If the article is written in British English, it doesn't matter if part of the article deals with the US, it should still follow British English. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you made some changes to "Treasure trove" which I'm not sure are necessary. Words ending in -ize following Oxford spelling conventions are fine in an article written in British English. I also do not think that inquire needs to be changed to enquire. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I just used a script that converts to British English. Traditionally, enquire is more correct; however the distinction isn't always kept, possibly due to the influence of American English. Oxford spelling is fine if the whole article is in Oxford spelling. Standard British English and Oxford spelling are two different English variations and are subject to the same rules as British vs American English. If Oxford spelling was used first in the article history, I can use the script to convert everything to Oxford spelling. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's no excuse. Use of scripts for such purposes should be prohibited; the one thing MOS does well is behavioral constraints. Your script is interfering, erroneously, with a careful writer. Understand the matter at hand yourself, or please leave it alone.

And this is also a persistent misunderstanding: We only go back to the article history if it has never been stable. If it is stable and consistent, as it was, leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was not consistent. It used both -ise and -ize endings. I just picked one and standardised it. I don't care which is uses as long as it's all the same. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There was only one -ise word (specialised) – all the others were -ize. Therefore, standardization should have been in favour of -ize. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The unit of consistency is the article, not the section, project or all of Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If the article as a whole was about US law, it should be written in US English. But only one section deals with US law. Therefore, yes, the article is the unit of consistency, as DF says. Tony (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

On the main page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which guidelines have consensus?
—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean which provisions have consensus?... the presumption is all of the guideline provisions reflect consensus, but we also understand that consensus may change. If you think a specific provision no longer reflects consensus, raise the issue here and we will discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But the presumption is demonstrably false for many sections. This talk page is so long and has so many archives because large portions of this page have never represented consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, but the working of some small faction which has inserted something on the basis of a "consensus" of two or three, now deeply buried, and then reverted for it on the ground that "there is no consensus to change" - because the faction will not join one. Even among us few, there has rarely been a consensus to keep any of these; but that's not enough.

Chief among these are

WP:MOSNUM

, and the section on linking within quotes. (I do not contend that there is consensus for any other prescription on these subjects, any more than the current one; but there doesn't have to be. Where there is no consensus, this page should say so - or be silent. )

I believe

WP:ENGVAR does have consensus (I have not seen it challenged, and it does seem to describe actual practice); I will not assert that anything else does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

19:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say this talk page is so long because people can have important-sounding opinions about style without proving anything, not because a different set of rules would get a better consensus. I agree that a small faction has more influence than it should, but any attempt to guess what the real consensus is would only anoint a new small faction as rulers. If a small faction gets disproportionate influence by arguing on and on and by incivility, then that is the problem to be solved; call attention to the problem when it occurs, and use dispute resolution when appropriate. Only then will we have a better idea what the consensus is. Art LaPella (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, maybe the Manual of Style needs its own glossary. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Internal consistency (permanent link here) says the following.

An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.

I understand that to be a guideline. Do you understand it to be a guideline provision? If so, what is the difference?

—Wavelength (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wavelength, that depends on what you mean by consensus. I am a long-standing opponent of WP:LQ, but I was under the impression that the fact that a majority of the contributors to this discussion page prefer it meant that it qualified for Wikipedia consensus. I don't think we've ever hammered out exact rules for what consensus should mean on a page like this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is a thorny and hoary problem, but I have always understood (and have had the point hammered home by experienced editors on several occasions) that consensus is achieved by 70% of those expressing an opinion being in agreement - 51% is not considered adequate. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

21stCenturyGreenstuff, you have stimulated my interest. Please provide links to those occasions.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

[I expressed an interest in knowing more, but I did not express a position of favor or disfavor.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)]

Yes, the 70% rule does not sound unreasonable, but I've never heard of it before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

‘Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority.’ (From

policy) A. di M. (talk

) 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So what is to be done about the editor(s) who does not like something or another in the MOS and then claims there is 'no consensus' for a that being in the MOS. Aren't they just playing the old game of holding themselves above all others and trying to exercise a personal veto--just as do those editors who do not implement/un-implement those provisions of the MOS that they disagree with. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a different MOS; we need a much shorter MOS - anything that cannot demonstrate present consensus should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. For all that English changes over time, at any given time there are things that are right and things that are wrong. What we need is a way for whatever's right to end up in the MoS. We've seen here that the quality of arguments don't always prevail over greater numbers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this page deal with any of the occasions where there is a demonstrable right and wrong in English (such as plural subjects must have plural verbs, sentences must be ended with punctuation, and so on - and even those have exceptions)? I doubt it; this page concentrates on those questions which have several legitimate answers, and endorses one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. LQ is one example. In British English, placing periods and commas according to the question-mark-and-exclamation-point rule is right and tucking them in all the time is wrong—though Slimvirgin said something about rule can be being restricted to nonfiction. In American English, tucking them inside the quotation marks is right and leaving them outside is wrong. Upon a quick clickin, there's also WP:HOWEVERPUNC, which deals with semicolons and independent clauses (although British English is more lenient on run-ons than American English is). Under WP:HYPHEN, we give examples, marked "correct" and "incorrect" (alias "right" and "wrong") for proper hyphen usage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

First, remember that consensus can change... Nothing in any of our policies or guidelines is forever locked in stone, never to be changed... that includes what is stated here in the MOS. If an editor feels that something stated in a policy or guideline no longer reflects current practice and consensus, all they really have to do is show that a new consensus has formed. This is best done by two methods... the first is to demonstrate a lack of consensus for the objectionable language, by showing how the objectionable language does not follow practice... the other is to suggest some alternative language and convince lots of other editors to agree to it. It isn't easy (which is a good thing), but it does happen. Blueboar (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The first step, the demonstration that the community does not all agree with Provision X, has been done immeasurably often; look at any of the archive pages and you'll find several instances. Practice is distorted by the bots and disruptive twinkle users who enforce the non-consensus imbecilities of MOS pages "because MOS says so".

The proper alternative wording is silence. Keeping language which does not reflect consensus is actively harmful - especially when there is no consensus on the subject because the faction that imported the language in the first place will not consent to its removal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Blueboar believes that all guidelines have consensus. Apparently, Septentrionalis believes that

.
Septentrionalis even wants the Manual to be much shorter. At the same time, new sections continue to appear on this talk page, sometimes with old questions, but sometimes with new questions. Therefore, it is urgent that editors come to an agreement about (1) how to define consensus, (2) how to achieve consensus, and (3) when and how consensus lapses.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
[I am clarifying my comment by inserting the underlined words.—Wavelength (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)]

We have

a definition of consensus: to paraphrase, it's what happens when everybody, however grudgingly, accepts a decision. (We will tweak that, when necessary, to "everybody but an insignificant number of special purpose accounts"; but a claim that that applies to any of these issues would require real evidence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson

20:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

US punctuation (vs. U.S.)

Explanation of change: [402163173=1&oldid=402127766&ids[402127766]=1] I thought this would be uncontroversial as factual, not prescriptive changes, but I was reverted, so here goes: The facts at issue: U.S. with periods is also more common in Canada as it is in the United States; U.S.A.F. with periods used to be used but has since fallen into disuse; US without periods is not merely accepted out of North America but more common there; and I'm not sure how the Chicago Manual of Style creeped into the text as this text is referenced no where else in the Manual and was not inserted as result of discussion on this page. --Jiang (talk)

You have already been blocked for disruption on this matter. Tony (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

eh? Misdirected comment?--Jiang (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Jiang's block record. It says he was blocked in 2007 for losing control of his password, not for style issues. Are Jiang and I missing something? Art LaPella (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see a problem with mention of the preference to omit the periods in the 16th ed. of CMoS; although CMoS or any other guide is hardly dispositive, but CMoS nonetheless speaks with considerable authority, and accordingly, merits mention. I cannot comment on usage outside the US. JeffConrad (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage outside North America is almost entirely what CMOS has now decided on. Tony (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

CMoS merely permits both formats without preference for either. Without our assertion of a "correct" form, I don't see how this serves any function.--Jiang (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about a blanket prescription. In some fields, such as U.S. legal writing, the periods still seem to be preferred. Perhaps someone with the latest edition of the Bluebook or similar guides for several states could give more authoritative guidance. JeffConrad (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know which is better, but I googled US or U.S. First hit was the Wikipedia article for the United States. Preview text on Google showed this para with U.S.: "The U.S. ecology is considered "megadiverse": about 17,000 species of vascular plants occur..."09:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rule 6.1(b) of the Bluebook states:

(b) Periods. Generally, every abbreviation should be followed by a period, except those in which the last letter of the original word is set off from the rest of the abbreviation by an apostrophe. . . .

Some entities with widely recognized initials, e.g., AARP, CBS, CIA, FCC, FDA, FEC, NAACP, NLRB, are commonly referred to in spoken language by their initials rather than by their full names; such abbreviations may be used without periods in text, in case names, and as institutional authors. Do not, however, omit the periods when the abbreviations are used as reporter names, in names of codes, or as names of courts of decision. . . .

United States may be abbreviated to “U.S.” only when used as an adjective (do not omit the periods):

U.S. history

But: history of the United States

In addition to the abbreviation “U.S.,” always retain periods in abbreviations not commonly referred to in speech as initials (e.g., N.Y., S.D.).

--Jiang (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Again I don't know or care really, but here is a quick essay where someone reviews several differing guidelines) [30] TCO (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly put off by Jiang's post, User:Noetica wrote to me a few minutes ago with this message. Tony (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

“

Jiang writes: CMoS merely permits both formats without preference for either. Without our assertion of a "correct" form, I don't see how this serves any function. Wrong! CMOS 16 says this: 10.33 “US” versus United States In running text, spell out United States as a noun; reserve US for the adjective form only (in which position the abbreviation is generally preferred). See also 10.4. And at 10.14, there are these specific provisions: 3. Use no periods with abbreviations that appear in full capitals, whether two letters or more and even if lowercase letters appear within the abbreviation: VP, CEO, MA, MD, PhD, UK, US, NY, IL (but see rule 4). 4. In publications using traditional state abbreviations, use periods to abbreviate United States and its states and territories: U.S., N.Y., Ill. Note, however, that Chicago recommends using the two-letter postal codes (and therefore US) wherever abbreviations are used; see 10.28. For Canadian provinces and territories, see 10.29. See also 14.286. CMOS itself uses "US" throughout, and in its preface makes a special point of this preference: "And, though we continue to present guidance on abbreviating country names in general contexts—including our new preference for US over U.S.—we also direct readers to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the latest two- and three-letter country codes for the 250-odd areas of the world for which these have been defined." See also the top part of 10.28: 10.28 US states and territories In running text, the names of states, territories, and possessions of the United States should always be spelled out when standing alone and preferably (except for DC) when following the name of a city: for example, “Lake Bluff, Illinois, was incorporated in 1895.” In bibliographies, tabular matter, lists, and mailing addresses, they are usually abbreviated. In all such contexts, Chicago prefers the two-letter postal codes to the conventional abbreviations. Note that if traditional abbreviations must be used, some terms may not be subject to abbreviation. See also 10.4. AK Alaska or Alas. AL Ala. AR Ark. AS American Samoa [Complete list follows] In case you want to contradict Jiang's misinformation.

”

I think I may have pulled an older edition when cross-checking the claim and was mistaken. My apologies. But how about a little assumption of good faith? It's not like I'm trying to spread lies here.

For our purposes, the emphasis should be 1) consistency within an article and 2) respect for national varieties of English. With CMOS taking a new stance on the issue in the past few months, it seems usage within American English is inconsistent. If CMOS is relevant in this guide, then additional information in TCO's link above would also be relevant.--Jiang (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But I omit the most obvious policy:

20:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

David Levy

20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Which prohibits doing something you don't want to have done in order to serve as a reductio ad absurdum on something else. I don't care whether I use straight or curly quotes; straight are easier, but that's not really important to me. It does matter to me when editors who do care have to waste time dealing with the non-consensus diktats of this ill-conceived page and its revert-warriors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're threatening to "go out of [your] way" to perform edits that you otherwise wouldn't, specifically as a means of creating disruption to protest practices of which you disapprove by deliberately and needlessly provoking them. Please don't do that. —

David Levy

21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Read "take the effort", then. Who knows, I may like the effect in article space; if I don't, I can always change back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you view spiteful, disruptive protest (intended to provoke precisely the actions that you oppose) as the only viable means of accomplishing your goal. —

David Levy

03:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Those of use who know PMA will tell you that he is at his happiest when not conforming, and not being told he has to conform. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? I would think not being told to conform, would remove all the fun of nonconformity; there would be no remaining evidence of anything to rebel against. Anyway, since my

IAR. Art LaPella (talk

) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... As much as I dislike certain parts of the MoS, I do like that we have one at all. We don't want articles written in chatspeak, after all. You go ahead, PMA. I'll stay over here, where I continually refrain from reporting people who make good-sense, good-faith edits that don't happen to conform to the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And again, I must agree. If that attitude were to catch on, MOS would instantly improve. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the main obstacles to consensus in regard to

answer, such as "Editors disagree.")
—Wavelength (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that such a broad question can be answered in any other way. Could you be more specific as to what you are looking for? Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for the main factors which are at the root of disagreements. I prefer to avoid providing leading answers, because I wish the answers to come from the minds of other editors, without the influence of

abstract thinking

ability to be able to identify what they see as the main factors for disagreement.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

First, let's recognize how Wikipedia is driven by vanity, a much more productive force than it is usually given credit for. Appealing to a stranger's love for fellow man will usually get him to throw you a life preserver when you need one, but if you want something more complicated, you usually have to pay him or appeal to his vanity.

Next, let's consider how that force works better in a Wikipedia article than it does here. If editors disagree about how to

Emperor's new clothes

? Vanity is often best served by insisting that one's previous answer is right, thus proving how smart one was the first time. Whoever shouts "proper English" the loudest is likely to be vindicated. So if those are the rules, there isn't much incentive to agree to the other person's opinion.

In addition to lack of interest in consensus, similar forces prevent us from seeing to it that the Manual of Style has any practical effect on the rest of Wikipedia. Most of us are interested only in expressing a style opinion so that others can appreciate it here, not in reaching Wikipedia's unseen thousands of editors by clarifying the manual, removing contradictions and duplications, and making it easier to find information.Art LaPella (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Art LaPella, for your insight. Vanity is a negative quality which can infect any imperfect human. (I am an imperfect human.)

To everyone reading this discussion, I say: Please read the following account about Jesus and his disciples, as translated in the public-domain World English Bible, Mark 9. You can choose another translation from the drop-down menu at the upper right of the page at http://worldebible.com/mark/9.htm.

(33) He came to Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you arguing among yourselves on the way?" (34) But they were silent, for they had disputed one with another on the way about who was the greatest. (35) He sat down, and called the twelve; and he said to them, "If any man wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all." (36) He took a little child, and set him in the midst of them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, (37) "Whoever receives one such little child in my name, receives me, and whoever receives me, doesn't receive me, but him who sent me."

Vanity is contagious, but we can resist it more effectively in ourselves by limiting contact with persons displaying vanity, and by associating with persons who are working to develop humility in themselves. In both cases, those persons can be ones that we meet in real life, or in any of the media, such as literature, radio, television, and the Internet.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a somewhat relevant discussion of "egoboosters" at Analyzing the Creative Editing Behavior of Wikipedia Editors Through Dynamic Social Network Analysis (5. Two opposite roles in Wikipedia: Egoboosters against Coolfarmers).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I just went and read that whole paper. Some interesting analyses. But I think the breakdown of how a POV wars goes on over Gates police or Edwards Nat Enquirer bruhaha is kind of different than junderstanding how do we encourage people who actually write each animal and state and such up to a FA content. Do the nontrivial research, writing, thinking, refining, etc. that will build real solid "stuff". That Japanese paper really seemed mostly to analyze how a flame war goes down and ois aadjuticated and its interesting...and I guess pretty relavent to the disputes here. But not as relevant to "how do we get more projects to be like mil history", which is something that would really benefit the reader.TCO (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You may find this interesting: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision/Archive 2#An arbitrator's question for all parties. A. di M. (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, A. di M., for that link. I did read most of that very long discussion, and I did find it interesting.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How to Win Friends and Influence People (permanent link here) has some relevant points.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Remember that a person's name is, to him or her, the sweetest and most important sound in any language." Mine isn't, to me. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. di M. (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two main obstacles to consensus:

1. The practice of revert-warring on MOS; reverting to an old text can never add any dissident to the agreement (such as it is) on the old text. Continual tweaking may reach a novel wording more widely acceptable.
2. That most of it never was consensus. People of One Book found a rule (followed in one country, or one textbook, or their personal program for the reform of the English language), and two or three of them dropped it in somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style needs clarification on (1) how to define consensus, (2) how to achieve consensus, and (3) when and how consensus lapses.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite all editors to consider the possibility that some editors have a need for

.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
[I am restoring the spelling of Acknowledgement with which I started this section. I acknowledge that both spellings are correct, but as the originator of this discussion, I want the heading which I composed to reflect my own preference. Some heading changes are improvements, but changing my original spelling in this instance was not.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)]

Sorry about that, WL. I was thinking with my spellchecker instead of my brain. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia once used WP:Barnstars for "acknowledgment and validation", but we got bored after everyone accumulated a list of barnstars. Maybe we should periodically change the color or something. I don't understand adopting something like barnstars for proposals; does it mean "Thank you for wanting dashes to be spaced/unspaced, but you're wrong"? I hope others (not me!) will gain insight into what Wikipedians really want by comparing it to something as illogically unpredictable as what women really want! Art LaPella (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What I had in mind was something to be placed in the relevant discussion on this talk page. It might have the following form: "Proposal A has these merits; proposal B has these merits; proposal C has these merits. After all proposals have been weighed in the context of what is best for Wikipedia, proposal _ is being adopted, for these reasons." Barnstars and other awards are placed in user space. (I provided that external link for additional information, but it [the information on that external page] can be ignored if it is too difficult to understand.)

—Wavelength (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

[I am inserting the underlined words for clarification.—Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)]

We could even consider putting that in the Manual of Style and deflecting the discussions in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If acknowledgement and validation of the merits of proposals are expressed in more discussions and earlier in discussions, then possibly in some instances their proponents will be satisfied and not unnecessarily extend the discussions or repeat the proposals.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what Wavelength is proposing is an extra, voluntary and more proactive form of WP:CIVIL. Actively dispel tension rather than passively avoid starting it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to actively dispel tension is to acknowledge when (as very often) the dissentients have a point. Very true; but the way to do that is to consider what changes need to be made to MOS to get more people to agree with it, in view of that point. Sending fellow editors off with a template merely makes the process of mindless dismissal patronizing as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that editors post comments (not templates) acknowledging and validating the proposals of other editors, and that they do so with an attitude of sincere respect, and not with a begrudging attitude (perhaps tinged with condescension or sarcasm). Editors unable to muster an attitude of sincere respect (in any particular situation) can leave the posting of such comment(s) to editors able to do so.

It is good for editors posting such comments to realize that they might indeed have misunderstood some aspects of the proposals being acknowledged and validated, and that their proponents might indeed be justified in continuing to explain their proposals, or in repeating their proposals in later discussions.

I recognize that such comments (of acknowledgement and validation) have already been posted in some discussions, but I am suggesting that they be done in more discussions and earlier in discussions. A formal structure for such comments might encourage participation.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of times when the only thing for it is to either accept or reject the proposal and no change in address or acknowledgment will dissuade the person from believing that his or her suggestion is right (and often enough, they are right). However, on this discussion board, there is a whole lot of, "Well WE already talked about this, so YOU shouldn't have brought it up. Didn't you read through the five thousand pages of archives before you deigned to bother us with your prattle?" Getting rid of that would be a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be a most useful thing. I can think of an even better alternative, but that's for ArbCom. not for us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am suggesting that such comments be posted for all proposals, including those which one favors and those which one disfavors. No such comment needs to be intended as dismissive or received as dismissive, and we can let the proponent of a proposal decide whether to continue explaining it and whether to propose it again.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That... would probably only dispel tension if it were sincere. Requiring it in all cases would leave us with people saying it even if they didn't mean it. Smacks of the self-esteem movement that simpered through the American school system in the 1990s. You know, the "give everyone a first-place trophy because they're all winners" thing? Turns out even seven-year-old kids can see right through that.

However, an unofficial policy of, "When you do see merit somewhere in a proposal, don't be shy about saying so" might do some good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely it would. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to avoid discussions here and at other similar venues because it's too frustrating and, in my experience, very rarely productive—the debates go on endlessly, with people repeating arguments that have already been made, until people just get tired of it all and it fizzles out. Then a few months later the same thing happens again.

WP:TALK says, "In the past, it was standard practice to 'summarize' talk page comments, but this practice has fallen into disuse." I would be strongly in favor of resuming this practice, producing summaries of the arguments of both sides of the debate, and linking to these summaries as rationales for the points in the guidelines that are being debated. A nice concise summary would be much more valuable than the long-winded, heated, unedited discussions that foam up on these talk pages. —Bkell (talk

) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A discussion summary might include a table with column headings "Option", "Pros", "Cons", "Supporting style guides", and "Supporting editors", and with row headings "Option A", "Option B", "Option C", and so forth. Wikipedia:Manual of Style has a few links to summaries in the rudimentary Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And when that obscure page is complete, it will be a guideline. What I propose to do is to make it a guideline now, by merging it with this project page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register has a record of decisions related to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and is not destined to become a guideline. An explanation is provided at the top of each of those pages.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bkell on resuming the summary practice—the seemingly interminable rehash of the rehash of the typographical vs. typewriter quotes discussion is perfect example. Once again, it appears that we agree to disagree, but it would be nice if we could at least agree on some of the points on which we agree to disagree. JeffConrad (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy discussion containment

In support of Bkell's remarks above: I would like to see two items in a "FAQ" on this page (and other policy discussion pages if it works here) or outlined in some other dramatic fashion with two "guidelines" for discussion.

• 1. To limit " discussion volleying" between two or three editors with each slamming the verbal sally over the net to make sure it's "not in his (usually a guy thing!) court." Volleying should be restricted to n returns per day (three?). Helps limit entries on our watchlists. Volume does not generally help reach a conclusion but seems to prolong the discussion. In fact, time away from the discussion and (hopefully) more thoughtful replies may help bring matters to a speedier conclusion.
• 2. When volume reaches n pages per day average (one?), fork to a named area for continued discussion. Interested parties can follow and watch the new page if they wish. This limits watchlist entries for those of us not interested in that particular thread. And they seem to be worse here than on any page I follow. Student7 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This (at least) relatively old piece of advice:

As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.

seems outdated and over-stated. The reasons given seem weak at best - readers will not be confused or mislead, readers will not suppose that those quoted actually said "I like 'wikilink' Somerset 'end wikilink' in the Spring." the question of clutter is dealt with by general linking rules such as

.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Readers can be confused or mislead by linking terms to articles that may suggest a different meaning of the term than what the author of the quote intended. It's a matter of inappropriate interpretation.—Emil J. 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not misled by correct links in quotations. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rich.

1. Linking quotes is no more clutter than linking any other piece of text.
2. If a topic in a quote is important for understanding the quote, it is much easier to link it than to think up a following sentence that only exists for purpose of containing the link.
3. Readers are not going to assume that a quote containing links was originally written or said with wikilinks.
4. Misleading or confusing links are, of course, bad but that is not a reason to just abolish links in quotes altogether. Editors just need to be link carefully. If someone mentions The Beatles in a quote, it can in no way be misleading to link the words to The Beatles.

That guideline should be deleted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking in quotes is almost always bad, and is an invitation to

WP:OR. A link can change the intended meaning of the quote, and that's not acceptable. Quale (talk

) 07:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If it links to the subject actually discussed in the quote (e.g., the Beatles ain't linked to beetles), how can it change the meaning? This has been often asserted, but we've never had an example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• The trouble with such links is that is the WP editor making the decision that the original writer/speaker meant the term s/he used to be the meaning of the term found in the wikilink. Such could be far from the truth. Let's not use trivial examples such as a popular name; let's use real examples as when some editor goes in and links all kinds of terms. This is an an example from the first lines of the Gettysburg Address (previously linked version from in May 2010): {{cquote|[[United States Declaration of Independence|Four score and seven years ago]] our [[Founding Fathers of the United States|fathers]] brought forth on [[North America|this continent]] a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that [[all men are created equal]]..... The terminology used could be discussed separately in the article (with justification), but is misleading in the quote itself. Hmains (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • None of this changes the meaning of Lincoln's text, which is what was claimed. The same vacuous objections would apply if an editor were citing Garry Wills' paraphrase of the Gettysburg Address Insofar as that could be a problem, any link has the same problem: is the article to which the link leads the subject intended by the reliable source? . By this argument, we would have no links whatever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If you want to engage in personal attacks ('vacuous objections'), I am sure that can be dealt with elsewhere. Substance is what is to be discussed here, however. Hmains (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You will notice that the objections are vacuous, not the objector; you are welcome to come up with substantive objections that would not (if valid) prevent all linking whatsoever. False accusations of personal attack are symptomatic of arguments without substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this edit summary is not only a real personal attack], but false:

• The removed text is not my personal view, which is that we should be silent on the matter. The program of minimal alteration, the general requirements that links should be to the right target, and our policy on
  WP:PRIMARYSOURCES
  say all that has to be said.
• That view appears to be shared by four editors in this section alone.
• The removed text is an effort at compromise, as would have been obvious to anybody who had read it and seen how much old language it retains.

The way to consensus is to tweak texts, so as to converge at something everybody can agree with. Reversion can never include anyone who disagrees with the reverted text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I reverted the recent change, in part because there's no consensus for it, and in part because I couldn't understand it. It said:

As part of the policy of minimal alteration, avoid linking from within quotes if the link would clutter the quotation or mislead or confuse the reader. Quotations used as primary sources should not be interpreted by establishing links; all links from within quotations should be avoided when it is possible to do so without cluttering the article with phrases repeated solely in order to link them. ... or something else. [31]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple. That was two alternatives, and a catchall. Since the two alternatives are not far apart, they could be tweaked together, if anyone bothered to read before pushing the revert button.

Since there is plainly no consensus for the existing language, I am restoring the dispute tag, with a link to this section; any one who removes that should be prepared to explain themselves elsewhere.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain using different words what your addition said? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely; parts of it were the existing language, and seem to me meaningless but harmless. The substantive parts are:

• When a quotation is a primary source, links -like any other treatment of the source - follow
  WP:PRIMARYSOURCE
  : don't interpret.
• Sometimes links can be made outside the quotation; if that can be done without harm, it is usually preferable. On the other hand, sometimes links outside the quotation involve pointless repetition just in order to have link text; don't do this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree strongly with the current policy. It is one thing if you are adding content yourself to add links. There are many small and subtle decisions you must make in doing so: what to link; where to link to; whether to use a direct link, a piped link, or link to a redirect which gives a different name for the article. This often affects what you write as you move words around, perhaps altering the meaning or emphasis (hopefully clarifying and making more encyclopaedic) to make the links clearer or avoid overlinking. But overall the links are part of your editing, your adding context to your writing to make it part of this encyclopaedia.
• But this is not possible with quoted text. You cannot adjust the text to make links clearer, to avoid overlinking or otherwise clumsy use of links. What if the term you want to link is ambiguous: King John for example. If you link to the supposed article, John, King of England say, you need to make assumptions about what the speaker or writer intended, assumptions which may be incorrect or may at least simplify the intent. The older, or the more political or opinionated the quote the more difficult this will be (which is usually why quotes get included - bland modern statements can be used as sources).
• Quotes are not meant to replace encyclopaedic writing but sit alongside it, adding context. Links are part of the encyclopaedia and so should be added to encyclopaedic text, alongside the quote if needed, in the see also section or elsewhere in the article. If there's no place for the link, so if the article has no relation to something mentioned in the quote, it should not be linked.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Proposed text: Links should only be included in quotes if there is confidence that the linked article in no way distorts the meaning of the original speaker. Links within quotes should therefore never be to disambiguation pages. Simple, permissive, but the need for care is emphasised. Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Links may not depend on the linked article; we cannot control it; it could be massively vandalized tomorrow; therefore

If links are included in quotes, the subject of the linked article should be that meant by the quoted text; if this is uncertain, do not link. (Secondary sources explaining the quotation may be cited in the same footnote which credits the quote itself.) Links within quotes should therefore never be to disambiguation pages. [Roman added for clarity; should not go in project text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I support the current version too (though I might tweak the writing): "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Not clear what "as much as possible" would mean in this context, because it's always possible, so I'd prefer a version that didn't say that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• The least ambiguous would be: "Avoid linking from within direct quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Anything such as "Links should only be included in quotes if there is confidence that the linked article in no way distorts the meaning of the original speaker" would just lead to another area for editor disputes (where does the 'confidence' come from: every editor has 'confidence' that they are right even if no one else agrees and 'confidence' is not a word I have seen anywhere else in any of our MOSs) and not necessarily improve WP article content. Hmains (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not "clutter the quotation": it adds no additional text to the quote at all.
It does not "violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged": it makes no change to the quote at all.
It will only "mislead or confuse the reader" if the linked article is not consistent with the meaning of the original speaker.
Given that the name is unlikely to appear anywhere else in the article, what would be wrong in saying His delighted manager commented that it was "a goal that Diego Maradona would have been proud of"? Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The example has two problems: first 'delighted' is POV / OR, unless it is also quoted. Second I can't think of any context where you'd want such a quote: do we have articles on individual goals? In an article on an individual player it would seem too much like trivia, one of the many gushing commentaries that a promising player attracts. If it were more significant than this it could be summarised: 'He was frequently compared to Diego Maradona.'. Quotes are only needed when this cannot be done, when the text is so odd that paraphrasing won't work. It's this oddness, the ambiguousness of it or the POVs implicit in it, that make it very difficult to link as normal content is linked.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged in my editnote that it was a probably not a strong example, but this critique has addressed only the example, not the principle. Maybe midnight on Saturday doesn't see my imagination at its most fertile. Perhaps a slight alteration of Rich Famborough's example at the top of the discussion is a better one: "I like visiting Somerset in the spring." (where the speaker was reminiscing on an April trip to Taunton), or "I like visiting Somerset in the spring." (where a playwright's hospitality tended to vary through the year). In this case, linking actually avoids the cluttering and changing the quotation principles rather better than clarifying which Somerset is meant by publishing "I like visiting Somerset [a county in southwest England] in the spring" or "I like visiting Somerset [Maugham, an English playwright] in the spring", both of which are permitted, if not particularly good style. But please can we focus on the principle of the inclusion of unambiguous links in quotes, not on the wisdom of including a specific text as a direct quote. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This way, someone who (e.g.) prints down the article and reads the hard copy won't be able to know which Somerset is meant. A. di M. (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly what will happen if there is no explanation; except that readers on line won't be able to tell either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And if the standard practice of writing "I like visiting Somerset [Maugham] in the spring" is followed, both will be able to tell. BTW, one could them put the link there: "I like visiting Somerset [Maugham] in the spring". A. di M. (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But how can it be logically or intellectually coherent to permit that and yet have, as a reason for not linking from within quotes, the idea that it "may clutter the quotation [or] violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged"? If consensus is against allowing, ordinarily, the inclusion of links within quotes, lets make sure that the reasons stated are not contradicted by our practice and recommendations. I would still prefer to be permissive of the practice, where it is informative to the reader and not detrimental to the understanding of the speaker. I still see no compelling reason presented here to prohibit such, even if it can be argued that it is rarely necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of the existing guidance - I would only link a phrase in a quote if (a) it's genuinely likely that the reader will not know what it means or who/what it refers to; (b) it's not already linked somewhere in the accompanying article text; and (c) we can be absolutely sure that the meaning we're linking to is the meaning that the original speaker or writer intended (otherwise we risk distorting the meaning of the quote). --Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A very slight loosening of the negative at the opening might be OK ("..., unless it is certain that ..."), but I share the misgivings of editors about the sanctity of quoted text and the difficulty of guaranteeing (over time) that a link target won't change in unintended ways in relation to the item in the context of the quoted material. PManderson gave one or two good examples last time this came up, a few years ago, was it? May I also say that if most readers are unlikely to understand the meaning of an item in a quotation, it should probably be explained on the spot, either in square brackets within the quotation, or in the WP text before or after the quotation. I generally do not favour wikilinking as an excuse for not explaining or defining on the spot. Tony (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can think of plenty of examples in which linking would not involve a personal judgement on the meaning of a quote: a physics quote that mentions quarks; John Smith claims "the film is bigger than Ben-Hur"; Lucy Jones claims "during his lifetime Jesus did not have as many friends as The Beatles"; Simon Peterson often described Herbert's moustache as "horrid, much like Adolf Hitler's"; etc. It is far neater to link such obvious meanings as those rather than writing "horrid, much like Adolf Hitler's [the leader of Germany during World War Two (a large war fought between many countries)]". But the context of links aside, surely we can all agree that links do not clutter quotes? Unless some people just don't like blue writing in quotations... McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe "Jesus" or "Adolf Hitler" should be linked. Nor should "Adolf Hitler" be explained in square brackets. The benchmark for linking should be higher within quoted material than in the main text, and it is questionable whether in main text these items would be linked, in most topics. I'd expect "quarks" were explained in the main text somewhere in the article, and surely could be linked on first occurrence, not in the quoted material. "The Beatles" might be a reasonable link, but would depend on the context. Tony (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course something that was explained in an article wouldn't need linking again, but if quarks was not mention elsewhere, the link is important for understanding the quote. One of the main problems here is that everyone has a different idea of what's link-worthy. In my opinion, any person is link-worthy. Nobody is a common English word (pun intended). McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why the MOS is widely ignored. There was never consensus on this piece of prescription; there is not now; and it deals with a class of links which vary widely in use and appropriateness (as these comments indicate). For my part, I urge all concerned to do what is appropriate, decide against MOS when the question is close, and take any interfering single-purpose account with no argument but because MOS says so to ArbCom.

On the substance:

• Explanation by link is no more Original Research than explanations in brackets or explanations in footnotes. If somebody calls an athlete "small as a quark", the link is as much editorial judgment as "small as a quark [the smallest of sub-atomic particles]" and likely to be better physics - and more readable by those who don't need or care about an explanation.
• On the other hand, if somebody links Politician X to
  Anti-Christ
  , they should be summarily reverted and probably blocked; but the same would apply to an edit leaving "Politician X - who is prophesied in Revelation as the Anti-Christ - endorsed...."

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

While we should perhaps take more care linking within quotes, I don't see why a blanket prohibition should be used. The reader may want to know why the subject would ever want to visit Summerset. And yes, it may require maintenance, just like the rest of the article does. Student7 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you will have some editors who misuse links to advance POV, just like the edit articles to advance POV. I just think the benefit of the convenience is worth the harm. Crap down on the pushers in general, rather than taking away this tool. TCO (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree... I see no need for a blanket prohibition... what we need is guidance on how to appropriately link in quotes, and guidance as to when and how doing so would be inappropriate. Stop thinking in terms of "rules" and make this more "advice". Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have agreement on recasting as advice?

If so, I think we can best do it on the page itself and get the benefit of the wiki method - our views on what is advisable are not that far apart.

On the other hand, if that is not consensus, I see no hope that there is one; if so, we should either acknowledge that views vary, or be silent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And, for the second time of asking: is there any claim that this section amounts to consensus for the present text? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for change. In such cases, no change is made. This is standard in WP, despite having editors who want their opinion to prevail regardless of others and also assert they ignore anything they don't like. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of essay would be good. Reading back on it, seems like Tony had some good points, to give the thing a little more of a tangibility (I agree with him on linkworthiness, and even if we all agree on that (here amongts this group), ought to stress it given we are telling people to be even more careful on links in quotes). That said, the Beatles could be a decent one, maybe expand the example to show when/when not. The quark thing is pretty good as well. I think we can all grok the ways links can be misused or dangerous as well, and the essay ought to have some tactical examples of malicious spin, or of a link likely to get out of date, etc. Maybe even some tactical examples of explaining by parentheses or with text in sentences after the quote. This would be very "advice like". Really think this level of stuff is much more helpful than the rules or wrangling over the rules (although both of those have huge utility as well, agreed, especially for editors who are less verbally sophisticated than y'all, with your style guides on the desk and all, but still generate lots of great content). But a beautiful essay where someone has really thought through a lot of plusses and minusses (some I may not have realized on my own) is a real service to me as an editor. And I think diffuses insight. TCO (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I'm having the hardest time figuring out how to communicate in talk. Seems like I want to make remarks that are longer than a single paragraph, but then you have to use bullets or repeat the little colons and should you sign each or what.TCO (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a multiparagraph comment by indenting it all to the same level, usually one more than the preceeding comment; you then sign it once, at the end.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will do it that way. Should I put a space between paragraphs like I normally would in text of an article? And what about when indenting (then lots of times, like even here, people don't space those. And I know this is radical, but why not make talk a little more like posting on a forum? Wouldn't have to do all this colon making and also no issue with people editing each others posts?TCO (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Space if you are using colons at the same level; asterisks supply the space. Changing the processing of edits requires a developer; I doubt they would be happy with this because it would require two different systems to handle posts, one for talk pages and the other for articles. And sometimes people would get confused which one they should be using.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I donno tho. Maybe it would be GOOD if people thought about the writing they do on article different from a talk page. And if they get confused about format, then what sort of additions do they make? Besides, if you just had a forum page, then the structure would just be "there". I mean they don't have to remember anything, they just have to "post", versus eedit. And different things with different needs drive different structures. And no structure is perfect, but perhaps some structures are more suited to different jobs. And the process and content of an article is a different thing than the talk page. I donno though. Plus, my old eyes have a hard time figuring out if I need to go to 6 colons or 7.  ;) TCO (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just copy and paste the indentation of the post you're replying to and append a colon (or a star if you want a bullet, or a hash if you want a number) at the end. Don't leave blank lines as that screws up the HTML (not such a big deal with visual browsers if no bullets and no numbers are used, but potentially a mess on screen readers and when using bullets or numbers). A. di M. (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy paste is a good trick. Thanks. Colon counting (pun intended) was getting to me. Sorry for threadjacking.TCO (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• On the substantive issue: Consider an issue which is certainly no longer consensus and may never have been. Whether or not any of these present issues fulfill that condition, eventually one will. This is a declaration that the old and prescriptive language shall be left, pretending to be consensus - although it is not and the edit restoring it does not reflect consensus. That is lying, and
  contrary to policy. If I believed that, I would abandon MOS (doubtless to the relief of many of you) and advocate strongly that it be deleted or degraded in its entirety. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
  16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

God vs. GOD and Lord vs. LORD

There's a couple of discussions about whether we should be using GOD and LORD in relation to MOS over here and here. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On the substantive issue: I do not think these templates necessary ({{

sc

}} has the same function) or really useful (we should write consensus English, not facilitate this particular corollary of the First Commandment; most people will not use these, and some will find them as irreligious as plaintext God). This seems to be the general opinion.

But I am appalled by the reasoning that because MOS does not require small caps they are forbidden. I hope this is carelessness of expression or desperation; Everything not compulsory is forbidden is totalitarianism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what he meant to say is that he can't find an exception in MOS to

WP:ALLCAPS: "Change small caps to title case." Art LaPella (talk

) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I meant. Sorry if this wasn't clear.... Mhiji (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am relieved to see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a "corollary of the First Commandment": GOD and God are used to translate different Hebrew words. (I agree that these templates have a very, very narrow utility, but they don't harm either.) A. di M. (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things should be decided by consensus at the article level and do not require mention in the MOS. I think this is one of them. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through MOS Section, MOS Layout, and How to Write Better Articles. HTWBA has great thought on the lead, but not so much on the body. Some things I'm grappling with:

A. Is it wrong (or "not best") to have sections without a paragraph (just subsections)?

For example: 1. Reproduction (empty of text, just has the other three under it)
1.1 Sex (coupla paragraphs)
1.2 Eggs (some paragraphs)
1.3 Growth (some paragraphs)

Or I could do some filler paragraph that introduces the concept and says there will be 3 things coming. I think at times that makes sense, when there is content. But other times really not needed. Sometimes it is even just a grouping really of some topics into a theme.

Or I could even just sorta mush 1.1 (Sex) into becoming text for Reproduction. This is how it is now, btw. I just don't care for it, because to me, I had three subordinate ideas, that had a common sense linkage (order) and were the "parts" of reproduction.

But your thoughts?

B. I'm kind of used to other writing in corporations and the military and a lot more liberal use of sections and such. HEre it seems that we want to have, I donno, two paragraphs at least, maybe 10 lines at least, per section? Is that right? It does make things take less space. It's the sort of text you would have in an article in a magazine or book. But not a report. It does make it a little trickier on a start article, where say, you kind of can figure out the thought heirarchy and put very short (or even blank) sections together. And then have it built.

C. Is there any guidance that tables of contents should not be "too long" (how long)? BTW, this article has a pretty long one.

D. Is it wrong (or bad) to have only one daughter section within a section? IOW:

1. Topic BLA (some text)
1.1 subtopic of BLA, some particular feature (some text)
(no more convenient subtopics to hand)

TCO (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. Does the linebreak thingie live on one of the toolbars? Can't find it in mine.TCO (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As for paragraphs, many of the guidelines for writing good articles won't apply here. Most articles describe a subject. We are providing rules. They don't fit into the same kinds of chunks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't tryint to diss on this manual. Forget this manual. Questions remain. Also, I would think some subjects can do with a very low section to text heading (a good biographic article might be written with none) and others really need more. It will be a spectrum, no? But I really don't find this manual that different than a normal article subject. I mean there is a heirarchy at least of categoriszing things. Are natural topics and subtopics. Actually gives me an idea. Look at this article. Can definitely see some sections Punctuation for example, where you just have a topic that groups subs, but no need for text at the beginning of itself (I don't count see also). TCO (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just look at today's featured article,

Wikipedia:TOC#Limiting_the_depth_of_the_TOC. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs}

) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I liked the statement "not best" above. It certainly is undesirable to have empty subsections with no introductory material to the daughter subsections. Forget GA/FA! But do we want to make this an MOS "requirement?" Certainly not stylish. And not good outlining to have only one daughter in a subsection. This implies bad structuring. I have done this, anticipating more "daughters" but that would be the only excuse, I would think.

For length of TOC/user friendliness, style seems to say two levels only. That is, no more levels beyond three equal signs. A toc much longer than a page is going to annoy people. And many of them are longer than that. I violate both these "guides" all the time without any compunction. But, editors have to realize that they are making their articles less readable. (I hate to admit it which Is why I am still doing it!). We have to remember that we are not arguing over "Emily Post etiquette" here, but readability.

Some editors circumvent the multi-level subsection/toc business by adding subtitles preceded by semi-colons. They are highlighted in the text, but don't show up in (and can't be referenced from) the toc. This can be a workaround, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You can also limit how many levels of the TOC appears at the top and still use multiple levels. That's what the link at the end of Adrian's post above demonstrates. Imzadi 1979 → 23:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions (permanent link here) says: "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority."
How are we to assess the quality of arguments objectively?
—Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't be perfectly objective, but the fundamental idea here is that a poll of a small sample of editors that happen to be participating in one discussion does not necessarily represent the views of the community, but policy does represent the views of the community. So we need to evaluate arguments based on how well they refer to, and reflect, what policy says. Conversely, I wish people would stop expressing their personal opinions in these discussion and try to frame their arguments entirely in terms of policy. Discussions would be much better. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We have no policy on punctuation. (ENGVAR may be, since it is practice; but it doesn't really apply to most of the issues here.) The quotation that begins the section is intended for a small body of admins (usually one) closing a poll; to apply it outside such a situation means discounting the unreasoned Support and Oppose votes; beyond that it is a vicious circle of appealling to consensus on what is consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur that ENGVAR should apply to punctuation the same way it applies to spelling and other rules of good writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As for quality of arguments, for this page in particular, the number and reputation of style guides that support a given rule or point could count for quality. It isn't something that's easy to tweak or manipulate to support a given agenda; the guides are there or they aren't. Of course, we'd have to establish whether, say, ten company style sheets count as ten style guides or one. I like the NASA style guide, but it shouldn't necessarily carry as much weight as AP or CMoS or the ACS guide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link for the NASA style guide? Tony (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Interesting story how I ended up using this one. I had some ex-engineers as clients and NASA's guide and example turned out to be the best way to convince them that yes, acronyms really worked this way and no, we didn't always capitalize "shuttle." You'll notice it cites CMoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Style guides galore here, which can be searched through this. See also this discussion. A. di M. (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They stylist types here (said respectfully) would probably like NASA's little gem by Katzoff. I remember getting a copy at Langley. Was this cool heritage thing like I could imagine Strunk students passing on copies of the "little book".

• PDF of Clarity in Technical Reporting
• I remember reading it and being impressed by how fun it was to read about writing and also how he urged dropping pretentiousness and evasion: "Apparently the presumed purpose to present information is frequently forgotten in the author's desire to show his own brilliance, to impress the boss, to impress the secretary, to demolish the rival or to get a raise. Worthy as these objectives may be, the basic objective should be to make the report clear and informative; furthermore, if this objective is attained, the secondary objectives will automatically be attained."
• He just passed away. Had no idea he was not around. Another Wiki article to make.

TCO (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The NASA guide looks as though it essentially is CMoS. As I’ve said several times, I don’t suggest that CMoS is the last word, and recognize that some outside the United States dislike it, but one great advantage it has is the vast variety of situations it covers. Another nice feature is the online search, so those with the print edition can quickly find occurrences of words that aren’t in the index. If I had to choose one guide, this certainly would be it. Though it’s nearly always where I first look, it isn’t always the best for everything, especially technical topics. One example: quantity and unit symbols and related matter. The ideal source is probably the ISO/IEC 80000 standards, but good alternatives for much of what they cover are

• NIST Special Publication 330 — The International System of Units
• NIST Special Publication 811 — Guide for the Use of the International System of Units

I can’t say whether they’re sufficiently acceptable to those outside the United States, but compared with the ISO standards, the price is right.

And even for less specialized matters, CMoS doesn’t always have the answer. A simple example: does a compound adjective (e.g., plug-and-play) in scare quotes need the hyphens? CMoS is silent on this, but the Merriam-Webster’s Manual for Writers & Editors covers it: the hyphens aren’t needed, because the quotes suffice to group the adjectival phrase (“plug and play”). An e-mail to CMoS got the same answer, but M-W say it in print and Chicago do not.

Note a fairly unusual practice in the linked NASA guide: closing up temperatures. Admittedly, this is a topic on which many sources disagree. Note also the anomaly under Latitude and longitude: the minutes and seconds are transposed; even good sources have errors.

I certainly agree that widely used guides are the logical starting point, but no such guide that I’ve read covers everything. So the best approach in most cases is probably to go with the preponderance of good guides, and use best judgment on specialized topics that may not be covered by any published guide.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffConrad (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to the thread above about image "alternation", this bullet in the MoS is bizarre:

• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences.

The theme twists back and forth between the orientation and the placement of images: the first sentence deals with left/right-facing portraits; the second sentence concerns a different issue: the so-called alternation advice; the third sentence goes back to the theme of right/left facing subjects in images.

I suggest the second sentence be relocated into the current third bullet point ("Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"), thus:

• "It is sometimes effective to stagger images in an article right and left, but care should be taken to avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and when bullet points are adjacent to a left-side image. Check that image placement does not result in a crowded, messy appearance at narrower window widths."

The Timpani article is not a good model.

1. It's a pity about the acres of white space at the top between the ToC and the infobox.
2. The wide image looks bad: first, the three components do not sit well together without proper boundaries; second, it squashes the text (including a level-three title, ahem) to the left at all but the widest window widths, and at wider window widths, it's too large for the small amount of text in the subsection; third, it's a bit small, given the visual detail, IMO. Why isn't it larger and centered between two subsections?
3. One of the images breaches a Level 2 section boundary at wide window width (on my 27" monitor).
4. The pedal image is too narrow for the caption and for the visual detail.
5. The left-side images would be just fine on the right, IMO. It's unfortunate that "A set of timpani", the heading, bumps up against the image when this could be avoided with right-side positioning.
6. The centred "chromatic passage" score excerpt should be on the right, and the three boxes—two of them sound files, look very messy at any width.

I'd be happy to advise editors to position to the left only where there is a good reason to do so, and to use care. More importantly, don't people think it's important to encourage editors to check what their furniture arrangement looks like at a number of window widths (whether all right-side or on both sides)? There's far too little of awareness of image placement not just for your own computer settings. I would also like colleagues here to consider why we don't advise caution in placing image syntax part of the way down into the text of a not-too-large subsection, if jamming all of the image syntaxes at the top works (usually, I've learned, it's much better and more versatile that way).

We would need to bring in the

13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I wish we would downplay the left imaging thing. I have nothing against a pretty occasional left image and certainly some professionally laid out books and the sort have them. Although the alternation thing is news to me. People really do think they "have to alternate". It causes issues with new images. It causes issues with text wrap if you have bulleted or numbered text (the defacto tab is lost, and yes you could still use a table, but then you have blank space...it just works better to go to the right in that situaiton). Plus the bullets look too close and with numbers, the image will actually cut off the numbers (see the baton on this article, test moving it to the other side):
  Baton (symbol)
  . Further, the text is already ragged on the right, so I suspect it is more economical to wrap around things on the right, than left. And (minor point, since both are problems, but it is probaly less of a sin to be moving the edit link for the section than to squat on or move the section headers. (latter looks worse, been through that all on "baton".
• When alternation interacts with "image facing inwards" it causes even more of a puzzle-solving issue. The temptation to reverse an image becomes palpable. And is it wrong to do it for an animal? An object? A landscape? A line diagram? (I figure I know the answer, but just saying the temptation gets higher as you deal with a non human face, but it's still making the photo more tweaked.)
• Also, this is just a whine, and I know everything is important, but the layout stuff becomes a time sink versus working on research or writing. TCO (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh...and yeah that sentence in the manual is akward, regardless. I'm a new editor and just reading it recently for first time had to scrunch my head for a second to parse what it meant.TCO (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support downplaying left images for all the reasons that have already been mentioned. I would also support downplaying the idea that people should be looking at the text. When Emmy Noether was up for FA there were some idiotic quarrels about where to place her lead image because she faced right in the image we were using (it's since been changed to a different image). Having the photo's subject face the text is nice but should not be a requirement. Ozob (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ozob and TCO (I think I understand your "idea that people should be looking at the text" as referring to the eyes-right eyes-left issue). Should I, then, propose a revamp of the image advice here, on this basis, and alert WP:IUP people to it? Then we can nut out what the final consensus might be? Tony (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Ozob (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just eyes right or left of people. It could be the direction an animal is facing or a spear pointing. There are a lot more articles than just biographies of people.

And I do see the rationale for pointing in, at least it is really something about the appearance of that image, although it causes problems too, but the rigid "alternation" is the worst! BTW, Cla68's How to FA essay say's to alternate as does Giano's. For some kid trying to get an FA, it's going to be much more likely to want to "do what people say you need to do" than to argue that technically the MOS only says you "can", or blather on about ragged right margins.

The MilHist Project how to FA talks about the trade-off on "having faction on consistent side" versus advance facing into the page, and says the latter is more important! I would argue that having true north facing top is the MOST important driver, after that having a consistent faction per side (let's say an article on squad level tactics) where north is unimportant is much more important than "facing in". Imagine looking at a chess article and having to flip perspective as you move down the page!

An MOS on layout that acknowledges how much more stable images on the right (at the ragged text side) would be helpful. It's one thing for someone doing professional layout of an art history book to play around woith left images or alternation, but he has fixed text when it goes to the printers and can do a lot of little tweaks to get things to work out in terms of text and picture clash. We have a different world, displaying on screens, with text that can always change a word or two from an edit in the future, and make line now wrap inappropriately for left images (espeicalyy numbered and bulleted lists) I'm just living in the how stuff goes down world...TCO (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the question of whether to use italics or quotes for titles of short films. This was previously

I'm raising the issue here instead.

Apparently the wording in MOS only mentioned that titles of films should be italicized before that message in 2009, not saying anything either way about short films, but was changed after that message, and now includes short films as an example of when not to use italics.

now says:

Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, paintings, films (feature-length), television series, and musical albums. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, short films, and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks.

Similarily, both

(nearly identical sections, which should be merged) say to use quotes and not italics for short films.

On the other hand, current practice seems to be to use italics. For animated short films the majority seem to use italics, and {{

and links from there, it seems that italics are definitely the most common current practice, followed by unstyled text. I've seen very few examples of short film titles in quotes.

I propose changing the guideline to match current practice, so that titles of short films are treated like longer films in terms of italics. Besides codifying existing practice (the path of least resistance), this avoids the question of how short a film must be to be considered a short film. We have to draw the line somewhere, and it seems better to draw it at some relatively clearly defined type distinction (film or not film) rather than a subjective or arbitrary length distinction. That seems to work well for other media, such as musical albums, where EPs are considered musical albums and italicized, while singles are considered songs and quoted, or TV episodes, where extra long 90-minute episodes are still treated like other episodes and quoted, even though they are as long as many feature films. --Mepolypse (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the difference between a feature film and a short film is a technical one, though standards apparently vary from country-to-country. I'd give a more detailed breakdown, but the short film article is completely unreferenced, so I can't be sure I'd be right. (I tagged the article and made a couple of other edits, as well, but dang it's bad.)

As for wether or not to italicize, I'm not sure. The distinction between long-form and short-form works isn't just about length (despite the names), but also about the nature of content and the way they fit with other works. The distinction is something I think should be maintained, but if the practice seems to have evolved to lose that distinction, I'm not going to be the lone holdout. But, I think I need to see more evidence.

It is true that title formatting is an inexact and at times inconsistent beast. After all, the titles of video games are often not italicized by many publishers. Yet, as long-form works, they should be. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What type of evidence is it that you want? --Mepolypse (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do the major style guides say?oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. Perhaps one of the people who previously mentioned having such guides on their desks could answer that. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For uniformity and to avoid silly debates in the future as to whether a film is properly viewed as a short film, I favor italicizing all. I also urge that this discussion be mentioned at the appropriate film wikiproject, if that has not happened as of yet.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I initially notified

WT:FILM as well. --Mepolypse (talk

) 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A short film is a film, so it should be in italics. Lugnuts (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal of updating the guidelines to correspond to the current practice. There isn't and has never been any clear distinction between short and feature films, other than as qualification criteria for various film awards, and those vary greatly even in modern time. I do however think it's a good idea to keep the current practice of quotation marks for segments of anthology films. Smetanahue (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All right then, no new comments have been made for a week, and this thread is about to be archived. I'll take this time to conclude that while few have commented, most seem to be in favor of treating short films like other films in this regard, and that there seems to be little support for the current guideline which, as noted above, was not added based on any real discussion. I'll change the guideline to recommend italics for short films. Thanks for your input. --Mepolypse (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The

, then extra spaces might be padded after a colon, so that rule should be axed pronto. Plus anyone knows that extra spaces help for emphasis, so an extra space after a colon would be used by highly intelligent people. As for more than one colon per sentence, let's consider the following and flush the rule about one-colon-per-sentence:

• The world spells e-mail by 2 major spellings (either: "e-mail" or "email"), but this led to a search-engine problem: 90% of webpage usage contained the word as "email" and so Google Search was changed to match either, when searching for the spelling as "e-mail".

When a colon appears in a

) 01:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

image alternation "rule"

I have nothing against a pretty image on the left, but it seems like this whole image alternation thing has gone overboard. Lots of times, the images mess up the text: for instance if you have a numbered or bulleted list (and yes, there are times when those are useful features to use in a textual article). Does someone who is not trained to "look for alternation", i.e. an average reader, mind having images on the right? The other thing is since the text is already ragged on the right, it ends up looking better sometimes in terms of wrap. Am I the first to ever remark this? Anyone refer me to where this has been talked about before?TCO (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to revisit the image guidelines. IMO, left-side images should be a rare exception; left-side images tend to squash the text in the middle. Image syntax should be placed as high as possible in each section, and preferably not distributed at various places through a section (unless it is a very long section). The problem is that we need to optimise for a large range of different window widths, skins, browsers, default font-sizes, and screen resolutions. Tony (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This, IMO, seems ridiculous. Should every non-trivial edit be previewed whilst varying all of these criteria? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what do you think of my bullets in Painted turtle? If I were writing a report or the like would totally use them. And I have a litle structure (each time the reader sees them he knows that they are a list of the subspecies, is the only thing I use them for in the article). But if people hate them or it causes wikistatic, can smush those things into paragraphs. Was just trhying to get a little more structure and separation to what was pretty dense technical text before I joined in. Anyhow even if the bullets go, at least I got us to follow the same exact order each time we discuss the subspecies. P.s. I've stopped type-writering in double-hyphens! TCO (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with your left-side images there, because they don't squash up with right-side images. I've been criticised for putting bullets to the right of an image. And do ensure you use the break syntax after or before a bullet and an image (I can't remember which), or it won't work on a screen-reader. Tony (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the look and the comment! That's why I didn't like the left image (and hence the alternation "rule").  ;) I will go research this break syntax thing. First I've heard of it, but I'm new...TCO (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style currently states that "[m]ultiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" (emphasis added), and I think this wording is adequate and needs no alteration. It permits (but does not mandate) staggering of images where appropriate, for instance, where a left-aligned image would not disrupt quotations or bulleted lists. By the same token, I would oppose any rule that insisted that all images should be right-aligned. If editors disagree on the positioning of images in a particular article, this is a matter to be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor freedom is important to give esthetically pleasing results. Painted turtle is a good example of where some images look better on the left; for instance animals, people and vehicles should be looking towards the middle of the page. And by not mandating alternation, it is possible to use good judgment in cases where the left-aligned images will mess up the layout. The current guidelines are quite fine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't per se, asking for a revision of your manual. Honest. I was just talking about practice. I'm just out here in content creation world, and...well I have heard it tossed around as a "rule" to alternate the images! And for someone trying to get to FA or GA or what have you, they might have the impression that strict alternation is the easier path to not raising any eyebrows, even if it is not a "strict rule".
• We actually had a crayfish pointing the opposite way before! We looked for another prey to follow alternation! See old version. We went and hunted down a different picture to get the alternation (found one facing left).
• My issue with the image on the left is the clash with bulleted text paras (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(embedded_lists)#Appropriate_use).
• I'm not anti-left images. Really I think they look lovely on long articles, say a biography, were there aren't many section breaks and you have long pieces of text. Just don't like them when they make the bullets get out of line (and even if you keep all the bullets tabbed, they still come too close to the image. I mean I could create some layout table, but then if the bullets go longer than the image, you get white space under the image. Just works way better to put on the right, ragged side, when text wrapping an image in this situation (with bullets). And I think I have a good reason to use the bullets. Makes the info on subspecies pop a lot more into faux sections and really helps reader navigating the page.

TCO (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Some people do take the "alternating" thing too rigidly. I sometimes do that, but also sometimes, especially in a short article with several images, stack all images at the start, right-aligned, which allows better for different hardware and size preferences etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Would that be considered violating the requirement of MOS Layout wrt images or a wrong alteration of a photo? I admit it. I want to! I think I know the answer, but figured I would ask. May we flip animal images? Trying to get the faces pointing in: we can't move to another spot, can't move to other side, because of other interactions. We could probably track down another image (maybe). Advice? TCO (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. However, you could ssk for help at the

Adabow (talk · contribs

) 22:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ostensibly, no: “images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences”. However, that this misinforms the reader is disputable w.r.t. animal images (and such practice is common in publishing outside of Wikipedia). If it were deemed permissible, it could be facilitated using an image display option and, to avoid accusations of misinformation, an indication of this automatically added in small text to the image caption, e.g.: (reversed). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no. See the section above about ignoring facing-in where necessary. Presumably not every species is left-right symetrical? Given the many factors already causing uncertainty as to what a Commons image is giving you, it's one less thing to have to worry about (whether someone has reversed it). Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this prohibition should be re-phrased in the conditional... as "Don't flip images if doing so might misinform the reader." Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a little segue, but while reversing is pretty "strong" manipulation of a photo, it gets into the judgment call of what manipulation is allowed. And I am not trying to be argumentative, just exploring ideas, honest. Obviously sticking people into seats at a concert too make the audience look bigger is lying, or changing the racial makeup of a group, or the like. but what about adjusting conrast to make something look better? Or in essence creating deriviative work, as allowed by CCSA, perhaps to make a figure that fits our layout better (I am thinking of taking this image, if I get permission and showing both photo and trap diagram, but of changing to be horizontal two frames vice vertical (as long verticals cause us all kinds of issues): http://www.tc.umn.edu/~gambl007/publications/Gamble_2006.pdf TCO (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is something in the official guidance (I did try a search) or just a basic writing question: what is the best way to express a range of numbers? "15 to 20 cm" or 15-20 cm? My bias is to use the dash as more econimcal and probably easier for the eye to scan (15-20 becomes "single word sized" and is grasped that way, while 15 to 20, requires thinking accross the three "words". But I'm certainly NOT a professional. And I'm asking for my own writing, not to go and edit away others preferences and then tout it.  ;) I would also think within an article, where there are a lot of ranges, that it would be better to use the same format consistently, whatever the choice. But what do y'all say? TCO (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh...and why don't we just make the default hyphen a non-breaking kind? Even typing a Word document, I'm always hitting ctrl-hyphen to make them non-breaking. We're not on typewriters anymore so when would you want to let the line break from it being a hypen? Just looks confusing as you wonder if it was intentional or not. Only time I see much intentional breaking is when you have a figure caption or multi-column text or the like. I can't be the first person to have this brain storm. But wouldn't it be easier to make the default non-break and not do all that nBsp typing? It's like when Washington DC was required to allow right turn on right (and they prohibit it at 80% of stoplights, so it would have been cheaper to put up signs for when you are allowed to turn right, than the reverse.) Would be left turning for Aussies or Japan etc. of course.  ;)TCO (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes (permanent link here) says the following.

En dashes

(–) have several distinct roles.

1. To indicate disjunction:
   • To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war). Ranges expressed using prepositions (from 450 to 500 people or between 450 and 500 people) should not use dashes (not from 450–500 people or between 450–500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's additive, thanks. What's the rationale for not with prepositions (I'm not trying to debate, just to understand!) Also what if I say "the painted turtle is 5-25 cm long, eastern subspecies 7-14 cm, midland subspecies 6-8 cm..."? Are the dashes OK there? Desirable? Not desirable? TCO (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for the rule about prepositions, I think, is that a phrase like "from 450 to 500" is really two prepositional phrases ("from 450" and "to 500"), and it is inconsistent to abbreviate one of the prepositions with a dash while writing the other in words. —Bkell (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Except that I'm seeing hyphens used for ranges in this thread. En dashes, please: not 15-23, but 15–23. Tony (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, but the real horror is, e.g.,"from 12-18". A dash does not substitute for the word " to ". Memethuzla (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure it does—how else do you read the phrase "the painted turtle is 5–25 cm long"? It's just that if you're going to spell out the preposition "from", you should also spell out the preposition "to". —Bkell (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It comes as a jolt to the reader to move suddenly from a spelled-out preposition (usually "from" or "between" to a substitutive punctuation mark ("to" or "and", respectively). Tony (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse the lack of clear attribution. Usage of the hyphen has been an interest of mine for some time, whilst others have been more excited by the apostrophe's.
Over the years, I have browsed many grammars & style-guides, English & U/S, but regret that I have neglected to cross-reference my findings. Others will know the area is fluid, indeed muddy.
Nevertheless, this presents some topics for discussion. The truth is out there.
Memethuzla (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Why are these sub-items not in alphabetical order? Memethuzla (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation; Hyphens

"If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad". (Oxford University Press style manual, I'm told, but I've seen something similar elsewhere.)

Here's another error in common usage, a bit of a bug-bear of mine, to add to the examples following

Punctuation 
:  Hyphens
...
:  3. To link related terms in compound adjectives and adverbs:
         * Values and units used as compound adjectives are hyphenated only where . . .

I suggest we could agree on this [citations?]:

Whilst one might have "a ten-pound hammer", one may (emphatically) not have "a hammer weighing ten-pounds"

(Correctly:"a hammer weighing ten pounds", sans hyphen.)

One may walk for ten miles, take a ten-mile hike, but it would be an error to walk for ten-miles. Ugh.

Authority is difficult to find. Most grammars/guides skip this particular, leading to some into confusion over how to express amounts.

Instead they talk of hyphenating numbers, or (slightly better), hyphenating numbers between twenty-one and ninety-nine inclusive.

Thus, "one thousand, one hundred and sixty-nine people would disagree", rather than any other variation thereof. (Off the top of my head, I think you'll find that in the Times style guide.)

• There seems to be a general consensus that hyphens are often on the way to agglutination.
  

Does anyone have views on holding back the tide? The modern tendency seem to be to go with the flow (much like sewage).

Some examples:

Those who work on the front line.

Those who work on the front-line. (Presumably an aberrant variation of front-line workers.)

Those who work on the frontline. (Most recent usage. I don't like this, personally)

Again (with progressive Ugh rating, and a degree of Tut):

Wiki mark-up (language)

Wiki markup

WikiMarkup

Wikimarkup

• Similarly, there is a prior tendency for hanging compound verbs to morph into immediate compound verbs,
  

maybe as a result of simplified computer parsing, or short attention spans, or just general decline:

• Perhaps the guiding principle should be clarity & disambiguation , rather than popularity or common usage, There are some quite funny examples to be found:
  

I resent that message. (re-sent)

A driver borrowed barroom broom.

The farmer thanked his coworkers for their cooperation.

Another polygamist had extra marital sex with some twenty nine year olds.

If I'm not careful, some-one will accuse me of pedantry, then the Sun-readers will be after me...
Memethuzla (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. Is there something in the Manual of Style that you would like changed? Ozob (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ozob, yes. Unless some-one can explain the higher logic, I would have the subsections of punctuation in alphabetical order, so to make it easier for those who already know the names of the marks to find the relevant section. But it isn't hugely important.

Yes. If examples of misuse & correct use of hyphens are to be given here (as they are, in part), I should like to see examples of usage regarding numbers also given here. My particular reason for this is that I see what I consider to be wrong ("She weighed fifteen-stone"), all too often.

As for the tendency for words to agglutinate, with a passing phase of hyphenation, it's just a point of awareness; I'm interested in whether there is any consensus on whether the process should be discouraged, tolerated, encouraged, or simply observed. Then there could be guidance for a while. Was I unclear? Where is WP:Cnut when you need him?Memethuzla (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• The use of hyphens is covered in many different sections. The hyphenation of numbers is in
  WP:MOSNUM. Usage is limited to popularity due to the need for searching: 90% of the World's webpages have spelled e-mail as "email" and Google changed the search to match either the formal spelling "e-mail" or the vastly popular "email". -Wikid77 (talk
  ) 01:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,

WP:hyphen itself does stipulate "Two-word names of numbers less than one hundred are hyphenated". Thus, "eight-and-a-half pints of beer" (yes), "buy two-dozen eggs" (no), but "six gross of number ten screws"(yes, naturally). I had omitted the convention regarding fractions. WP:Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers, has the rule that I would regard as correct, also.Memethuzla (talk

) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people use or don't use hyphens whenever they want to. Modern usage, especially amongst Americans, is favouring no hyphens. This is the first time I have ever seen someone spell "someone" with a hyphen – Oxford Dictionaries Online doesn't mention it as an alternative or even redirect it to the usual spelling. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! Alfred,Lord WP:Tennyson would certainly have had it, "Some one had blunder'd"; I suppose I'm still in transition. This very spell-checker, at my finger-tips, does not flag "some-one"; it does flag "favouring", but accepts both "colour" and "color" so it isn't reliable. Maybe the Americans have invaded. Even my pocket Oxford of 1960 has only the emphasis diacritic some′one, as does a random Angol-Magyar dictionary to hand {some°one , to be precise. valaki.} Some how I doubt I'll change. Perhaps the Americans are unsure of themselves, or feel that hyphens have negative connotations? I did a quick search for +MississippiMissouri, but found it only as URL-speak. The Web, and spell-checkers, have a lot to answer for, I suspect they are the masters now.. Memethuzla (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Even in British English, someone is 2,964 times as common as some-one and 282 times as common as some one.[32] A. di M. (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Though this topic has seemingly been beaten to death, a review of the archives suggests that a few aspects either have been given short shrift or have not been addressed at all. So I'll add a few of my observations to the record.

The statement

“There have traditionally been two styles concerning the look of the quotation marks”

is at best disingenuous. Straight quotation marks have traditionally used with typewritten material, because there was no alternative; typeset material, however, has traditionally used, unsurprisingly, typographical quotation marks, and has done so for hundreds of years. With typewritten material, the choice of glyphs was limited to keys on a typewriter, but with the advent of laser printers in the mind 1980s, the choices expanded to include symbols, such as opening and closing quotation marks, varying horizontal punctuation (e.g., hyphen, en dash, em dash, minus sign, and similar).

One characteristic of any font is that the glyphs are designed to harmonize. On a typewriter, straight quotes were no more unattractive than other glyphs; with typeset material (in essence, anything using proportionally spaced fonts), the clash between straight quotation marks and the other glyphs is quite noticeable, especially with serif typefaces. Although the clash may be less obvious with the default WP sans-serif typeface, it's glaring if a user has specified a serif typeface for printing, display, or both in her .css file.

Various arguments have been advanced for recommending straight quotation marks in WP: that they're easier to type in both edits and searches, and that typographical quotation marks don't display properly in some browsers. There is some validity to the former, but is the latter really an issue in 2010? For the former: why are quotation marks any different from any other non-ASCII character? In particular, I note

“Do not use substitutes for em or en dashes, such as the combination of two hyphens (--). These were typewriter approximations.”

It seems to me that the same is true for straight quotation marks. If the objective is to avoid non-ASCII characters, then that policy should be applied uniformly. And WP might as well use a monospaced typeface. And forget mathematics.

Perhaps I would not go so far as to require the use of typographical quotation marks, but I certainly would would make them at least as acceptable as straight quotation marks, and I'd probably second many previous suggestions to having no objection to converting straight quotation marks to typographical quotation marks as long as it was done consistently to an entire article.

Again, I simply do not understand why WP seems to treat quotation marks differently from many other non-ASCII characters that are commonly (and rightfully) used in articles. JeffConrad (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. This has been discussed umpteen times, but the consensus as always been against curly quotes, though I can't remember anyone giving a reason against them which wouldn't also apply to dashes or other non-ASCII characters. A. di M. (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• The idea that curly quotation marks wouldn't display properly in older browsers is the most valid reason for banning them. However, because this is a technological reason, it is right and proper to periodically reevaluate it and see if it is time for the ban to be removed. While browsers have come a long way, we must remember that many of Wikipedia's readers are not from wealthy first-world countries that are always using the newest software. And for the record, I prefer the look of straight quotes. Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  The curly quotes are in the

  MES-2, so they are likely to be found in the default fonts of any computer less than about a decade old. Any font lacking appropriate glyphs for ‘ ’ “ ” is likely to lack appropriate glyphs also for – — and lots of non-Latin characters. (I don't think the browser itself has any direct role in it, except the fact that some but not all browsers are able to choose a fallback font if the default font lacks the glyph for a character.) A. di M. (talk

  ) 14:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the look of curlies, but making them consistent within an article would be a pain. How do we determine whether it's viable to allow them in terms of font choice? Tony (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I don’t quite understand what you mean by “whether it's viable to allow them in terms of font choice”. Are you saying that there may be problems if a user chooses a certain font?

Compatibility with older browsers/fonts: again, if the system can’t display opening and closing quotation marks, it probably can’t display most other non-ASCII characters, either, so an argument based solely on quotation marks is unpersuasive.

Consistency within an article: I’ll concede that this can be an issue, but I don’t think it’s any greater an issue than consistency of use for other non-ASCII characters, or for consistency in many other areas that have nothing to do with punctuation. I suppose the case could be made that, in many articles, quotation marks appear more frequently than other non-ASCII characters and consequently present a greater challenge, but I am nonetheless unpersuaded.

Personal preference: I happen to prefer the look of typographical quotation marks, especially with serif typefaces, but I think the issue is more one of conformance to practice that’s been established for hundreds of years than of my, Tony’s, Darkfrog24’s, or anyone else’s personal preference. The current wording in the MoS is misleading because it implies that there is a long-standing tradition of using straight and typographical quotation marks interchangeably, without regard to the typeface; this simply isn’t true. Straight quotes weren’t common (if they were used at all) until the arrival of the typewriter, and the only reason then was the limited number of keys. Although the typewriter was a useful device for a bit over a hundred years, I think it’s fairly safe to say that its era is essentially over. JeffConrad (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In typesetting (traditional publishing), curly quotes are of course established and the best choice. However, on typical computer screens, curly quotes are highly dubious: it is only on really good displays that there is any clear difference, let alone benefit. I support straight quotes for clarity on typical screens, for simplicity and consistency, and for the searching factor. Another weak reason to keep straight quotes is to avoid the agonising disruption from bot-like editors zapping hundreds of articles, with fight back from some editors citing "don't change established style". Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that—in regard to the abstract question "which should be used in an ideal world"?—relying on people's opinon as to which looks better will be problematic at Wikipedia. There will never be an agreement on this here. In my opinion, the answer to this question should be answered by what experts say on the matter. Miles Tinker tells us in his landmark work, Legibility of Print, that "Mere opinions are not always safe guides to legibility of print" (p. 50). However, there is also the question of what is realistically possible and best for Wikipedia users. If the technological issues with using (or changing to) typographically correct quotation marks are pressing, that should override the "ideal world" expert opinion. My two cents is to keep the straight quotes until it is no longer an issue to change to typographical quotes, and then to rely on experts as to what will create a professional product for Featured/Good articles in Wikipedia—our best articles. Consider that in 5–10 years, the number of FAs and GAs will (hopefully) be much increased. I, for one, would like readers to see "best practice" (professional-looking products) in the English language, as agreed on here by our editors, but informed by the experts. Just my thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the passages in question to a (hopefully) more neutral wording. I hope the new wording is acceptable to the editors here. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I strongly disagree that “it is only on really good displays that there is any clear difference”; the differences have been mighty obvious to me on every monitor I've had for the last 25 years. I’ll concede that the differences are less obvious with a sans-serif typeface like the WP default, but the differences are far more pronounced with a serif typeface, which any user can specify by choosing a different WP skin. And it’s conceivable that WP could someday change to use a serif typeface for the default. Choosing a glyph strictly by appearance is usually short sighted: an obvious example would be treating a lowercase l as interchangeable with the numeral 1, which works in some fonts but not others.

Airborne84, I completely agree that, for the most part, editors’ mere opinions are largely irrelevant. I tend to follow established practice because

1. The people who developed it usually weren’t blockheads, especially with regard to typography. To me, it would seem sensible to defer to hundreds of years of experience.
2. I have better things to do with my time than reinvent the wheel, especially when it’s to little or arguably adverse effect.

As for “technological issues”, it’s far from clear to me just what they are. I’m sure if we try hard enough, we can find combinations of browsers/fonts/whatever that cannot display typographical quotation marks. Does that mean that we should avoid anything not supported by Lynx?

I should add here that Lynx handles handles typographical quotation marks just fine, displaying them as ASCII quotes. JeffConrad (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And once again, it makes absolutely no sense to raise the display issue for typographical quotation marks but not for other non-ASCII characters. If we want WP to display properly on a

Teletype 33, we should deprecate all non-ASCII characters. JeffConrad (talk

) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony says that making curly quotes consistent within each article would be a pain. Would it be appropriate to add a line to the MoS advising editors to only use curly quotes if willing to put in the effort to check the rest of the article? We would have to be careful not to make it sound like permission to go in and change established styles from straight to curly without discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to do this, then yes, I think that would be appropriate.

There's one other argument against curly quotes that we should discuss: Searchability. It's harder to search for curly quotes because they're not as easy to type; the average person won't know how to type them at all. I prefer curly quotes even with this problem, but I think it's worth a mention. Ozob (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Same applies to dashes, or indeed to most non-ASCII characters. A. di M. (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Darkfrog24 that any editor using typographical quotes should ensure that they're used consistently and properly. Though I’ve suggested that it should not be objectionable to change straight quotes to typographical quotes, an argument can be made for not changing an established style without prior discussion (though I think the case for stare decisis here is much weaker than for most other stylistic issues).

As has been suggested in some of the archived discussions, an article would ideally be coded with typographical quotes (like any other non-ASCII characters), and if desired, converted to ASCII approximations (in this case, straight quotes), much as Lynx does. AT&T’s troff/nroff worked much the same way: the former generated output for a typesetter-type device, and the latter generated output for a typewriter-type device, using ASCII approximations wherever possible; in most cases, the same source could be sent through either formatter to produce results appropriate for the output device. The issue here is slightly different (aesthetic preference rather than device compatibility), but it should be amenable to the same approach.

The issue of searchability is real, though I honestly wonder how often it comes up (I’m not sure I’ve ever done a search within an article that included quotes). Again, of course, as A. di M. notes, there is the same issue with any non-ASCII character, including accented characters, so I can’t see making a big deal out of it solely for quotes.

It’s also true that entry requires a bit more effort; this is especially true for apostrophes because the current edit bar only allows entry of single-quote pairs. Perhaps the ultimate answer is some additional WP markup specifically for these characters, as has been suggested for nonbreaking spaces. I don't have much experience with TeX, but later versions of troff handled this by recognizing `` as “ and '' as ”; the latter obviously wouldn’t work here given the WP idiom for italics, but a similar approach might be OK (the markup could be converted to Unicode upon preview or saving). Another option would be to have opening and closing single quotes as additional entries under the edit window. I’m personally fine with HTML entities, but I’ve encountered objections from other editors, so I usually enter the Unicode characters.

I assume that, in most cases, font and browser compatibility is not an issue; I’ve used typographical quotes for a dozen years with no problem even in Netscape 4; the only issue with Netscape was that it didn’t recognize the mnemonic, so the Unicode character codes (e.g., “/”) had to be used. A quick glance at List of XML and HTML character entity references should indicate what displays and what doesn’t; the only problem I can find is that Opera doesn’t display ensp, emsp, or thinsp. I used the latest Windows versions; I’m using XP, so I can’t test IE9, but I assume it would be at least as good as IE8.

I think we should change the wording for quotes in markup to something like

Do not use curly quotes in HTML markup (such as <ref name="xxx"/>) because they usually will not work.

We also might want to mention that that straight quotes are not proper substitutes for prime marks (′ and ″) used to indicate feet/inches and minutes/seconds.

Ultimately, the HTML <Q> element might be the best approach. Unfortunately, present support in most browsers is very poor, and WP apparently doesn’t even recognize it. JeffConrad (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nit: "straight quotes are not proper substitutes for prime marks (′ and ″) used to indicate feet/inches and minutes/seconds". But such prime marks shouldn't be used in the first place, according to

MOS:NUM#Unit symbols. Art LaPella (talk

) 02:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, not for feet and inches anyway. Art LaPella (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree. But I think there are some exceptions that weren’t considered when that section was written. For example, giving a measurement as 8′ 3″ rather than 8 ft 3 in and perhaps perhaps describing a photographic format as 8″ ×10″ rather than 8 in × 10 in. Personally, I’d do the latter as simply 8×10, but some editors have objected. But I certainly agree that in most cases, 8′ is not a proper substitute for 8 ft. And for a conventional measurement, I’d go with 8 in × 10 in. JeffConrad (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On further thought, in most cases I’d probably go with 13 ft 6 in rather than 13′ 6″ (and in most cases, I’d prefer not to mix units). So while there may be a few exceptions for feet and inches, they’re probably few and far between. JeffConrad (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Though I’ve suggested that it should not be objectionable to change straight quotes to typographical quotes...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Holy heck, you're killing me. This is Wikipedia. Someone somewhere will object to it. Yes, I agree with your follow-up that we should keep to the established rule of not changing styles without at least a talk page heads-up first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I’ve been to Tweakipedia and back . . . but honestly, someone will object to almost anything almost anywhere. I certainly did not mean to equate objectionable with “no one would object”. JeffConrad (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO, the use of typographers quotes should be allowed for those shepherding editors who want to take the time to use them—which is only too easy for Mac users. They look far superior to straight quotes. That means that editors would not be required to use them. That would mean that when editors who eschew the complexity of typographers quotes want to type some text that includes quotes, they are perfectly free to use straight quotes. Sometimes, articles have shepherding authors who sweat such details and ensure their articles are refined and harmonious with consistent use of typographers quotes. A proper guideline, IMO, would also mean that editors should not go through articles and change a bunch of typographers quotes to straight quotes just because they added a set of straight quotes. Greg L (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotation mark glyph straw poll

Since no-one seems to strongly object to curly quotes any more (except for reasons which would apply for pretty much any non-ASCII character), I'd propose to replace:

The exclusive use of straight quotation marks and apostrophes (see preceding section) is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser's search facility (a search for Alzheimer's disease could fail to find Alzheimer’s disease and vice versa). Furthermore, HTML elements (such as <ref name="xxx"/>) may not always work if curly quotation marks are used.

with:

Straight and curly quotation marks should not be both used in the same article. (This applies to quotation marks displayed in the text of the article: in HTML elements such as <ref name="xxx"/> only straight quotation marks can be used.)

Since this is a significant change, I'm going to advertise this discussion to the Village Pump. A. di M. (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• The MoS should indicate which is preferred for new articles. It should also have something to say about changing existing articles. My vote is to prefer typographical, per almost all quality sources. Typographical characters are made easily available to all via the Insert bar which WP renders below the edit pane. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Let me be the first to oppose. As the current MOS already states; typability is the main concern. How do you even type them? It's easy enough in Word, where they are converted automatically. But here I would need to look up the character codes, copy paste them from another page, or use charmap.exe to look them up, only to find out that there are even more variants available (just look in the edit toolbar; I count 10 possibilities), and wondering which one to choose because none of them look like the ones on the article. Add to that that curly quotes are less eligable on screen then they do on paper, and they are bound to spark editors (like me) into "correcting" them purely for readability. Basically, this is editing hell. — Edokter • Talk • 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  ‘How do you even type them?’ Well, how do you even type en dashes and em dashes? A. di M. (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I also have to oppose this. Curly quotes are easy to type on a Mac – “like” ‘so’ – but are impossible read in the edit window and I don't know how many editors will now the key combinations (option-[, option-shift-[, etc.). They are similarly illegible in the edittools, especially an issue as there are a lot of them there. I would also raise the concern that as well as breaking Wiki markup and search it also could break links to article titles and section headings with quotation marks in, such as to
  next guideline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds
  13:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  If you can’t type them, just click the handy ‘buttons’ (I just did) that WP conveniently renders below the edit pane. The reduced readability argument seems spurious since other commonly-used glyphs such as commas and semi-colons contain the same elements: , ; ” ’. There’d be no need to require compliance; bots/scripts can be used to fix things up in most cases. And btw, they render fine in the edit window for me. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, I think you referred to my “handy ‘buttons’ ” as the edittools and complained of their illegibility—that’s not the fault of the glyphs therein; the edittools could be rendered in a larger font (or you could zoom your browser window a little). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)They render fine but are too small to be readable. This is not an issue with the comma or semicolon as there's no other similarly shaped glyph used there. They are very unlikely to be confused with the similarly sized and placed full stop or colon as apart from being different shapes they are used in very different ways. To my eyes even in an article ” and " are very difficult to tell apart: it's only the opening “ that makes it clear which sort of quotes are being used. I suspect it's a display issue: a computer screen at 100dpi is no match for printed text at 1000dpi or more. And, yes, I could zoom the window but that makes the text too large for either reading or editing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Curly quotes are a pain in the neck to enter. They will not be used by most editors even in articles that have supposedly been converted to use that style. 86.173.169.220 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose No, absolutely not. We have a uniform, or very near uniform style, when it comes to quotes. Allowing them will create zillions of problems and incredible amounts of both inter- and intra-article inconsistencies, none of which correctable through semi-automated editing means like
  books
  } 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, for several reasons:

• I first note, like Wrapped in Grey, that typographical quotes are used in almost all quality sources, and were used exclusively for hundreds of years until the invention of the typewriter in 1870. Like any other glyph in a font, they are designed to visually harmonize with the set; that just isn’t the case with ASCII quotes.
• A few editors have indicated that they prefer straight quotes. While that's certainly a preference to which they’re entitled, it’s hard for me to believe that it represents a consensus of most editors. Perhaps clues can be found in templates such a {{
  Cquote2
  }}, which displays

  like this

If straight quotes were really preferable, templates such as this would use them.

• The example above shows quotes from a serif typeface, in which the differences between typographical quotes and straight quotes are more pronounced. The current default typeface for WP is sans-serif, but a user can specify a serif typeface for printing, display or both. And it’s conceivable that at some time WP could change to a serif face as the default, so judging solely by current appearance would seem shortsighted.
• I simply do not understand the purported difficulties in entering typographical quotes; I've used them in many articles, and it’s simply a non-issue (I usually highlight a quoted passage an then enter the quotes using the link below the edit box). Incidentally, I honor the existing style of an article that already uses straight quotes. There are several ways of entering typographical quotes

1. Using the links below the edit box, as I mentioned above.
2. Entering the character codes with either the Windows or Macintosh facilities. I think it should be borne in mind that we’re talking about four codes to handle quotes, so I don’t really see the need to resort to charmap.exe or something similar. I’ll concede that I sometimes do need to use that program (or the special links below the edit box in WP) for some of the more esoteric characters, but not for common ones like quotes or dashes.
3. Using the HTML entities (e.g., &ldquo;).

• There probably is some validity to concerns about intra-article consistency; in articles I’ve worked on that use typographical quotes, I’ve sometimes had to change a few straight quotes to typographical quotes, but this really isn’t a big deal. And the problem is hardly confined to quotes; I see it with other symbols such as multiplication signs, minus signs, primes, and so on. And such fixes are usually trivial compared to fixing a reference that doesn’t match the prevailing format.
• Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t seem to experience the display problems, either in the edit box or in the article text, mentioned by some editors.
• I had thought that the main reason to have devices like laser printers and graphical monitors was to have output that looked typeset rather than just typed. There is no free lunch, of course; achieving this does sometimes require a few extra keystrokes, but I’ve just not found it to be a big deal. When laser printers first became commonly available about 25 years ago, the company I was with faced a similar transition from pure ASCII output to essentially typeset output, and getting people to use typographical quotes, proper dashes, minus and multiplication signs was simply a non-issue, so I’m somewhat baffled that it’s a problem 25 years later. Perhaps it’s just me . . .
• I’ll return to an observation that several of us have made repeatedly—it makes little sense to treat quotes any differently from any other non-ASCII character of which WP articles use many. It seems to me that if we want to stick to characters on a QWERTY keyboard, we should do so consistently, using two hyphens (“--”) for em dashes, x for multiplication, a hyphen for a minus sign, (R) rather than ®. and so on. I doubt we’d seriously consider doing this; yet these characters are just as difficult to enter as typographical quotes. I’ll concede that quotes are entered more frequently than most of these other character; the most bothersome for me is the apostrophe, because I use it so frequently.

Ultimately, I think the best argument for at least allowing typographical quotes is that it follows standard practice for typeset material. And again, it makes no sense to insist on directly keyable ASCII characters for quotes yet also insist on the proper characters for everything else. I cannot see any reason to return to the days of line printers and alphanumeric terminals, but if that’s what’s wanted, it should be conscious decision that’s applied consistently.

Finally, I think it should be noted that we’re talking about allowing (which technically we currently do anyway), rather than mandating (except for intra-article consistency), the use of typographical quotes, and forbidding, rather than simply discouraging the use of typographical quotes in HTML markup. For consistency toward that end, I would remove the Not recommended wording as well. JeffConrad (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to your point about fonts: that's irrelevant. It is not shortsighted to make a decision based on the current Wikipedia font; it is silly to make a decision based on the possible situation of Wikipedia changing fonts. If Wikipedia does change fonts, then the quotation mark conversations can be started again. Till then, it is an irrelevant argument. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But different browsers choose different fonts based on what’s available, so what looks right on one user’s display may look entirely different on another’s. Moreover, a user can specify a different default font for display, printing, or both. So I’ll stick by my point: coding solely on the basis of appearance (bet it quotes or anything else is nearly always a mistake). Content-based coding will usually adjust to something that’s at least reasonable under most conditions. JeffConrad (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not Microsoft Word. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sure that many would agree with you; however, no-one has suggested that it is. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose They are a lot of hassle for editors for almost no gain to readers. On most screens they are virtually indistinguishable. −Woodstone (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  What are you opposing—that you would be forced to use them? No-one has suggested this either. It seems that we’re back in discussion but without a clear proposal; what is needed now is an update (with detail in light of the above comments) to the proposed MoS change which can then be further discussed and/or voted on. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not very good at following long discussions, but it seems to be that the only advantage gained is aesthetics. The main reason I am opposing is there will be a lot of internal inconsistencies creeping in, which just creates a truckload of trivial, tedious work. I would, however, support a move to change to curly quote marks, but not an endorsement of both/personal preference.
  Adabow (talk · contribs
  ) 09:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – Curly quotation marks are far more difficult to enter. Articles that use curly quotes will constantly have people, especially people who do not know MOS, entering straight quotes, which will be a maintenance nightmare. Also, there is no actual point to using any particular shape of quotation marks; they both mean the same thing and neither is ambiguous so why break consistency? If the guidelines are changed, I think it should be worded a bit better than how the proposition words it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Would it require the changing of the font used on Wikipedia to have a curly quote be the default when that key is struck on standard keyboards? I suspect that this may ignite a discussion regarding serif vs. sans serif fonts, but I thought it was an obvious possibility (although I'm not suggesting that it's the easiest one or necessarily a viable choice) that hasn't been addressed—at least as far as I can see. I'll admit that I haven't read through all the comments though. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  No, the default (sans-serif) font contains curly quotes, but they are hardly distinguishable form normal quotes. — Edokter • Talk • 14:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  Actually the Wikipedia style sheet only says "sans-serif", so it's the browser that chooses which sans-serif font to use, among the ones the operating system provides. For example, on my laptop " and ” look obviously different, but on the terminals at university they look completely identical, even after zooming in. A. di M. (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• That won't work. It requires the software, e.g. MS Word, to be smart enough to do the right thing – 'smart' being a relative thing as it would be precisely what you don't want when editing reference tags, CSS elements, etc. Though they are used the same way ASCII quotes and curly quotes are different characters and appear in fonts in different places.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. (I should read VP more often.) Ugly (IMHO), prevents search engines from finding the material, difficult to type. "Difficult to type" could be fixed by adding it to the character insert list, (I see it's already there, but appears to be normal upright quote characters on my screen at the default size(!).) Identical appearance in some fonts. {{
  Cquote2}} is a special case, as the quotes are a different size, alignment, and font from the text. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
  15:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support so long as we make it clear that authors using curly quotes must be willing to put in the work to do them right. I would also support adding the words, "Wikipedia prefers but does not require straight/typographical quotes" (whichever we end up preferring). Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand how the second straw poll below differs, but I oppose here and there, because I'd prefer consistency in how we write quotation marks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would require an enormous amount of effort, cause numerous problems and provide very little benefit. I don't understand the logic behind switching from a near-consistent, easy-to-maintain state to an inconsistent, difficult-to-maintain battleground. [I oppose any implementation of the idea, so I've posted this comment under both the original straw poll and "straw poll within a straw poll."] —
  David Levy
  01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll within a straw poll regarding curly quotation marks

• Support the idea but oppose the wording here that is under consideration to implement it. I would propose something more sophisticated to handle the issue.

  I couldn’t disagree more with those who think typographers quotes are ugly; the truth is they are the defining hallmark of fine typography. If most people found them to be ugly, they wouldn’t exist. The real problem, as many editors pointed out above, is that they are hard to type for those running Barbarian-OS. It’s just a fact that for those articles that A) are no longer stubs and are in a mature state; and B) are of a nature where they just don’t have many quotes; and C) have a shepherding author or authors who regularly clean up this sort of thing, there is nothing wrong with typographers quotes.

  I would propose instead wording that absolutely does not require that any editor have to horse around figuring out how to type typographers quotes. It could be something as simple as this:

Typographers (curly) quotes: No editor is required to use typographers quotes (He said “I gave him a solid ‘no’ to his question.”) in place of the easier-to-type straight quotes (He said "I gave him a solid 'no' to his question.") For those articles that consistently have typographers quotes, if editors must add new text containing quotes, they may use straight quotes and allow the shepherding authors of the article to later convert them. Alternatively, they may chose to copy a pair of typographers quotes from elsewhere in the article and use them for the newly added material. In such articles, do not make edits that accomplish nothing else than to convert typographers quotes to straight quotes.

The above avoids burdening editors who find it inconvenient to type typographers quotes while allowing those editors who are shepherding mature, well-done articles to clean the quotes up. For most articles that are no longer stubs and have reached a certain level of maturity, the simple reality is that while there will always be a continual dribble of various kinds of edits, those that entail the addition of a new quote are very rare. So this wording would allow a live-and-let-live relationship. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I largely agree with Greg L, though I might add a sentence or two explaining the difference between typographical and typewriter quotes rather than assume that everyone knows it. I might encourage, but not require, new edits to articles with typographical quotes to also use typographical quotes. I might also suggest several alternatives for entering typographical quotes (with Greg’s suggestion, there now are at least four ways). JeffConrad (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  The difference between the two types of quotes is explained immediately before the text which I've proposed to replace. A. di M. (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there is an explanation of sorts, but the current wording isn’t really correct; the distinction isn’t between two methods of rendering (which is handled by the OS) but between two different styles of quotes that be entered. The explanations given in

Quotation mark glyphs

are better but still not perfect. Perhaps something to the effect of

Two types of quotation marks can be used:

• Straight quotes, typically used with typewritten material; the opening and closing marks are identical.
• Typographical, or curly, quotes, typically used with typeset material; the opening and closing marks are different.

Because the common current meanings of “typewritten” and “typeset” are somewhat broader than the strict definitions, perhaps examples of each type of display could be given.

Perhaps just including links to one or both of the articles I mention above would suffice. The first article is interesting in that it shows different characters for opening and closing quotes in the box at the upper right and then uses typewriter quotes throughout the text of the article, which at least to me, is confusing. JeffConrad (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If fact it seems that " are quotes and ' is an apostrophe (all though several current computer programming languages treat and apostrophe as type of quote) not "double quotes or single quotes". unicode.org unicode.org says in regard to x'0027' "2019 ’ is preferred for apostrophe" as well as for x'0022' "preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are 201C “ & 201D ” " . PS an example where both curly and straight quotes should be permitted in the same article. DG12 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  The exception of articles talking about quotation marks themselves (as opposed to using them to enclose quotations) is so obvious it didn't even occur to me to mention it. A. di M. (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no good reason for using curly quotes. We're an online encyclopedia and subject to online rules which make using fancier typographic elements like curly quotes a pain to deal with. I find User:JeffConrad's reasoning unpersuasive: so some people made giant curly quotes in a rather superfluous template? That doesn't mean we should abandon common sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To your first sentence, the “good reason” is typographers quotes look better; if they didn’t, type foundries wouldn’t have ever bothered to make them in the first place for pretty much all typefaces on the planet. To your second sentence, if you find them a pain to deal with, then under this proposal, there is zero requirement that you deal with them. Greg L (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I support the idea, and the suggestions of Greg L and JeffConrad. Disallowing proper quotes is an odd artifact of obsolete technological shortcomings amidst the otherwise sane MOS guidelines on punctuation, and Greg's proposal would make it painless to adopt a style conforming to hundreds of years of typographic tradition without imposing any burden on those who can't be bothered with it.—Emil J. 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. “We’re an online encyclopedia”. Yes, just like Britannica, which uses typographic quotes. As do almost all quality sources and the on-line content of The Times and The New York Times. That we should encourage (but not mandate) their use hardly seems in question; we just need to make sure that guideline is clear and does not introduce problems with, for example, wikilinks. I don't see that it should: if an apostrophe is changed in an article title then handling the consequences are no more onerous than when renaming for any other reason. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Aye, and I've enjoyed the prohibition of curly quotes because it made spotting copyvios from these news sources far easier to find. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  BTW, the German, Spanish, French and Japanese Wikipedias (and probably many others) all use their respective languages' version of typographical quotes, at least on today's featured articles. A. di M. (talk)

• I loathe curly quotes, but will be neutral toward a proposal that allows them without requiring or preferring them. ——chaos5023 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Having finally read through all the points, I think allowing editors to use typographic quotes without requiring them is reasonable. I don't think the Wikipedia community will ever allow a comprehensive change on this matter all at once. It's probably better to do this small steps at a time and see how it is received at each step. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  What would be a smaller step than is being proposed here? A. di M. (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any comment that curly quote marks provide any advantage except that "they look better". Is this it, or can someone enlighten me further?
  Adabow (talk · contribs
  ) 03:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It’s purely an issue of they look better. Typographers quotes are simply part of fine typography. Typographers quote are indeed hard for people running Windows to type. But they are super-natural for many Mac people (keyboard-accessible and it’s the same for all programs). The above proposal basically just says “If you don’t want to use them, great; then there is zero requirement for you to have to horse around with them one iota. All editors are asked to do is to refrain from wading into highly refined articles where editors have taken the time to use them and do nothing but convert curlies to straight.” That’s all. Greg L (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. I would still prefer either keeping straight, or a total switchover to curly, for the sake of uniformity. If this were to be the case I would support it, but a mixture of straight and curly doesn't really appeal to me.
      Adabow (talk · contribs
      ) 07:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • If this poll were about requiring or preferring curly quotes, then we would need to say how they provide an advantage. However, this poll is about lifting the ban on them. We need to say how they don't provide a disadvantage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, some people on some systems can see the difference, and they know how to enter the correct characters. But vastly more people fail to see any benefit from curly quotes on typical screens. The main problem from allowing curly quotes would be the pointless edit countitis and back-and-forth trivial edits: proponents would eagerly convert articles, or add quotations using their favored format (irritating those editors with a different view). Simple, unambiguous and easily-entered wikitext is good; anything else is dubious and requires more than ILIKEIT justification. Having curly quotes would be one more barrier for new editors, with no significant benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vastly more people . . .

Have you done a survey or is this just speculation? Absent a perceptible benefit, it seems doubtful that type designers would have used typographical quotes for hundreds of years. Whether they’re “right” or “wrong” is in the eye of the beholder, but it’s difficult to argue dispute that they aren’t considered good typographical practice. A simple search will yield many articles such as this one; I don’t suggest that Ms. Strizver is the last word on the subject, but she does have considerable experience with digital typography, and has been published by a reliable third-party source, which is likely more than most WP editors can claim. I think many of us would just as strongly assert that a prohibition requires more than IDONTLIKEIT, which is about all that I’ve seen so far. As for ambiguity, I simply don’t understand what you mean. As for the difficulty of entry, I’ll repeat once again a question that many have asked but to which no one has yet responded: why are quotes more difficult to enter than any other non-ASCII character, and why should they be given different treatment? It seems absurd to bar typographical quotes while simultaneously barring the use of a double hyphen for an em dash; the latter strikes me as unambiguous, if perhaps not as pretty, as the real thing. JeffConrad (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My "vastly more people" is referring to typical screens. I have used Compugraphic typesetting equipment and need no convincing that curly quotes and unspaced em dashes are best in high-resolution publishing. They don't work so well here, although I am happy with unspaced em dashes. If curly quotes are required, MediaWiki should be enhanced to render straight quotes as curlies (with some tricks/special markup to enter quotes that must be straight). Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Two questions come to mind: “What is a ‘typical’ screen?” and “What is a typical viewing distance?” I’ve easily seen the difference with any graphical display I’ve ever used. Additionally, is the output viewed at the default size or increased or decreased (increasing size makes sense for a greater viewing distance). And yest again I ask the question, Why are quotation marks any different from any other non-ASCII character, either in discernability of differences from ASCII approximations (where there are such things) or in difficulty of entry? If it makes no sense to use

Bob was thinking—as bewildering as the thought of Bob “thinking” might be—that it just might be possible to use a 4×5,

why is is not OK to use

Bob was thinking--as bewildering as the thought of Bob "thinking" might be--that it just might be possible to use a 4x5?

Surely the latter, though not quite as pretty as the former, is equally clear in meaning, and it’s easier to enter. It would seem to me that we either worry about typography (as the other-language WP pages mentioned apparently do) or we do not.

It might be nice to have quote transformation done by MediaWiki, but the transformation would need to handle most foreseeable special cases, and would need to ensure that ASCII quotes in markup were not altered. I’ve written several programs that worked most of the time, but there were usually a few cases that did not work quite right. Another option might be simplified markup (similar to what was discussed under En dashes above). As I’ve mentioned, I’ve used typographical quotes and other non-ASCII characters for 25 years without giving it much thought, but full disclosure: before software with “smart” quotes, I used software that recognized `` . . . '' to provide opening and closing double quotes, so the extra effort wasn’t much. As mentioned, this idiom would not work here because of the existing markup for italics, but perhaps a similar concept would work. Of course, it would become yet another WP-specific think to learn, so I really wonder how much it would save over Alt-0147 . . . Alt-0148 on Windows or the slightly simpler sequences with a Macintosh. Or simply using the character links below the edit box. JeffConrad (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not OK? Because "--" is a half-assed emdash done on typewriters with a limited set of characters, and that "x" is a half-assed times symbol. x is a letter, denoting a character, × is a symbol, denoting multiplication (or other operations, such as the cross product). x x x is typographical unclear in meaning. Does it stand for "x × x = x²? Or does it stand for xxx = x³? In the case of 4x + 4x5 does it stand for 4x + 4 × 5 = 4x + 20, 4 × +(4 × 5) = 80, 4x + 4x5 = 4x + 20x = 24x. In your example, does "4x5" stand for 4 × 5 = 20, 4x5 = 20x or some abbreviation such as "4(letter x)5" which would stand for something like "Quad x-5 model engines"?

Straight quotes are not half-assed quotations symbols, they are quotations symbols. Bob was thinking—as bewildering as the thought of Bob "thinking" might be—that it just might be possible to use a plunger. is no less clear than Bob was thinking—as bewildering as the thought of Bob “thinking” might be—that it just might be possible to use a plunger., and the allowing the latter will makes our editing life utter hell (see my above post for why).

books

} 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you italicize x as a variable and stick it to the previous stuff, whereas you keep x as a multiplication sign upright and space it on both sides, it's unambiguous: x x x, xxx, 4x +4 x 5, 4 x +4 x 5, 4x + 4x5, and so on. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a terrible idea to do that, only that there are reasons other than ambiguity to avoid it. A. di M. (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• In case this is a separate poll, still Oppose. If this suggested version were to be included, I would suggest that if the so-called (not in the proposed version) "shepherding editor" makes one mistake, a monitoring editor would be justified in removing all typographical quotes, rather than locating the specific mistake(s). Ease of searching seems adequate justification for forbidding those quotes, and ease of editing (even if the quotes were to appear in the text). As an alternative, I would suggest that editors be encouraged to use {{smartsinglequote|1=quotation}} or {{smartdoublequote|1=quotation}}, which would properly expand to the desired form, but that the quote characters, themselves, should not be in the Wikitext. This would still damage searches of Wikipedia, but would allow editors without a specialized Wiki-editor to edit articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  Would some of the people repeating the mantra about "ease of search" please educate me what on earth do they mean? In typical search engines like Google, it is impossible to search for text including typewriter quotes, because they are special characters (they denote a literal phrase). Thus, if anything, replacing typewriter quotes with proper quotes will make searching for them easier. Why would anyone want to search for text including quotation signs in the first place is escaping me.—Emil J. 11:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  It is possible, although not easy, to search for text containing a quotation mark in google. More important, though, is that if you search for foo bar (as a quoted string), and the actual text is foo “bar or foo, “bar, it will not match. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  It sure will. Here's a test: [33]. Two of the top ten results (for me; Google search notoriously depends on location, sun spots, and other stuff) contain typographical quotes, one of them being a Wikipedia article.—Emil J. 12:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  And to preempt another point: in WP internal search, it will not match. However, this is no different from the behaviour of typewriter quotes, they also will not match:[34]. I conclude that this whole thing about searching is pure FUD.—Emil J. 13:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  You don't need a specialized Wiki-editor. You can insert “” in the special character palette below the edit box. Also, I don't see what such templates would accomplish (and they'd need far shorter names than that). A. di M. (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose increasing the burden on editors (even those who freely accept it) when the burden ought to be placed upon the maintainers of the editing software (I know, they're volunteers too). Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The wording "Straight quotes, typically used with typewritten material; the opening and closing marks are identical" is factually incorrect. Typically, typewriters are no longer in use. Seriously, I tried years ago to explain to a neice who is now in her 20s how the enter key on a computer was like the carriage return key on a typewriter, and she replied "but I've never used a typewriter." Explaining anything in terms of a typewriter will fail to communicate to younger editors. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

“typewriters are no longer in use”. Kinda my point, in a way . . . Seems to me that a WL would solve it; a more strictly correct description could be given, but it would be more complicated, to the effect of “monospaced output”, or “devices that generate typewriter-like output (character printers, alphanumeric terminals)”, or “pure ASCII output”. I think most readers would find the typewriter description easier to follow. I suppose we could say that straight quotes “were used in typewritten material, and some people still like them”, but I think most editors would find this pejorative. JeffConrad (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I’d have to agree that templates would be unlikely to be seen as superior to the simple ‘point-and-click’ that we already have. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Editors should be free to choose. New wording looks great. SteveB67 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comments. I agree with Emil J that the search argument is largely FUD, an argument looking for a basis. I also agree with Wrapped in Grey that templates, even with more compact names, would be more work than any of the four alternatives for entering non-ASCII characters that we’ve discussed. The only justification might be if a template could handle the tasks (choosing quotation marks, including those for nested quotations, based on the language setting) the <Q> element is supposed to handle. JeffConrad (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the idea, per JeffConrad. While I rarely if ever use them myself, and am in general not a "fan" of their use in either-or situations, I see no reason to prohibit others from doing so.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- curly quotes look good in rendering, but not good enough to make them worth the effort to maintain. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, I would prefer consistency. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't really know how this differs from the above section, so I'm gonna oppose here per the same reason as above as well just so it's clear that this is a horrible idea, and that whatever "variation of it" is proposed is equally horrible.
  books
  } 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would require an enormous amount of effort, cause numerous problems and provide very little benefit. I don't understand the logic behind switching from a near-consistent, easy-to-maintain state to an inconsistent, difficult-to-maintain battleground. [I oppose any implementation of the idea, so I've posted this comment under both the original straw poll and "straw poll within a straw poll."] —
  David Levy
  01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Generally speaking if an author wants to format an article in this manner I see no reason to reject. But, the curly-quotes are significantly more burdensome to maintain and editors shouldn't be required to follow that style when adding to existing articles, so this proposal seems like a happy media. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose both. The relative difficulty of maintaining consistent use of curly quotes in an article outweighs any minor aesthetic benefits. And the consistency of always using the one kind across every article is beneficial.

There is a huge difference, by the way, between curly quotes and other non-ASCII characters like the dashes. Curly quotes give no additional difference of meaning from straight quotes, whereas the dashes have distinct roles that cannot be replicated by a hyphen (unless one is careless). That's why we need to allow them. oknazevad (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, there is no substitute for a non-ASCII character; however, for some, ASCII approximations (e.g., two hyphens for an em dash, x for a multiplication symbol) are unambiguous, and it makes no sense to disallow these approximations while disallowing (technically, not recommending) typographical quotes. JeffConrad (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, those are poor substitutes that were only used when they were needed; while it could be argued that also describes straight quotes, there's no loss of correctness of punctuation when using straight quotes. The same can't be said for using a hyphen for an endash, and if endashes are introduced, then proper emdashes also should be used.

None of this addresses the other (and I would say more important) aspect of ny objection: the increase difficulty in maintaining article consistency. Or that we should be encouraging site-wide consistency where it doesn't conflict with known (usually national/regional) variations in language usage. As far as I know, there's no distinction in any variation of English between the meaning of straight and curly quotes; they are fully equivalent. oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. 1) The proposal is to "allow" not require. 2) Comments related to "in font fff" or "displayed on device ddd" should consider what "may be" available now or in the future. 3) I object to the restriction that straight and curly NOT be used in the same article which is especially useful with code samples. DG12 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  I see no compelling reason to "allow" the introduction of unnecessary inconsistency (along with the various difficulties discussed above), far outweighing the minuscule benefit of having arguably prettier quotation marks in some articles.

  It's inaccurate to claim that such a change would require nothing of editors; it would require us to either actively participate in the style replacement or stand back and allow the encyclopedia's quality to decline. "You're not obligated to clean up the resultant mess" (scare quotes) is of little solace to those of us who see no need to create such a mess in the first place.

  If you believe that there are specialized cases in which the two different types of quotation marks should be combined to draw an actual distinction, please draft a proposal. But that's unrelated to this proposal, which is based upon the assumption of interchangeability. —

  David Levy

  17:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Code samples are a special case, much like one should write 2 * 2, 2 - 2 and 2^2 (or 2**2 instead of 2 × 2, 2 − 2 and 22. A. di M. (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. But it would be preferable to take the present text, drown exclusive, and include the arguments for curly quotes (which I have no intention of using, btw). No rule should be understood so as to be prevent the listing of a font including both kinds of quotes; but if this can be covered by in text or some such phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, do you support the allowance of curly quotation marks in general prose, or do you merely advocate that we explicitly note an exception (already existent in practice) for cases in which we seek to illustrate such a glyph? —

David Levy

18:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both. Note that the first is allowance, not requirement, which would be worse than what we have now. Opinions against requiring curly quotes should be noted for when that proposal comes up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I oppose the allowance of curly quotation marks in general prose (for reasons cited above), but I have no objection to the notation of an exception for cases in which we seek to illustrate such a glyph (a matter of common sense, really). —

David Levy

18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This has really been illuminating. Far too many editors had a knee-jerk reaction to what they thought the above-proposed guideline said something it didn’t and responded anyway with shear nonsense like This would require an enormous amount of effort. The “effort” is currently borne by shepherding authors who may decide for themselves how they want to spend their time contributing to Wikipedia. All this would have done is sanctified the real-life reality we see on Wikipedia and asked for some common, reciprocal curtesy. But that was apparently too God-damned much to ask.

All it says is that if editors don’t want to use typographers quotes, they don’t have to—not even if they add text containing quotes. There are a number of such fine articles on Wikipedia that consistenly use typographers quotes.

No; I won’t point them out for fear of a WP:DICK acting like a dick.

And these articles are maintained by shepherding editors who understand that typographers quotes are part of a suite of fine typographic practices that include the proper use of em-dashes (—) instead of a double-hyphen (--) and the use of the en-dash to denote a range (pages 20–24). That’s why fine word processing programs like Word automatically generate typographers quotes.

All this guideline would have done is sanctified proper etiquette and asked of editors who find typographers quotes tedious and who want to stick with typewriter quotes is to abide by one simple curtesy: just don’t wade into articles that consistently use typographers quotes and do nothing but change them to typewriter quotes.

For shepherding authors who go though the extra effort, that was not too much ask and the result here simply shows that editors who don’t take the damned time to actually read and comprehend the proposal have as much say as do people who take the time to read the proposal. It reminds me of people who vote for candidates in local elections based on who has the most *American*-sounding name: these people’s votes count as much as anyone else’s. There are editors flitting about who create problems on Wikipedia and write inane crap like how the degree Celsius is not one of the International System of Units. It takes so damned much time (*sigh*) and respond to this stuff to prevent Wikipedia from being taken over by the 9th graders and people who have no flying clue about what they are talking about (other than they have an opinion and Wikipedia gives them a voice).

So…

(Quotation Marks) Or just let others do the heavy lifting and simply not go flat out of your way to undo that effort

So I’ll propose this guideline since to help better identify the editors who are just plain ornery:

Typographers quotes No one is required to use typographers quotes. But for those articles that consistently use typographers quotes (because the article has shepherding authors who address quotes as a superset of fine typographic practices that include the use of en‑dashes em‑dashes), don’t be

WP:DICK

where you wade in and change them all to typewriter quotes.

There… Clearly, the wording with the “WP:DICK” isn’t seriously intended to be part of a real guideline. But the principle being conveyed here is spot on precisely what I mean. Ample electronic white space is provided below so we can now see editors’ real spots here. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

For someone stressing the importance of "curtesy" [sic], the above comments are extraordinarily discourteous. I don't appreciate having my views dismissed as "shear" [sic] nonsense" stemming from not bothering to read and comprehend the proposal.

I took the time to read every word of this discussion before (and after) weighing in. I don't know whether you've done the same (and I won't hurl accusations to the contrary), but you obviously don't intend to take seriously the opinions of those with whom you disagree (or "dicks," as you prefer to label us). —

David Levy

21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just where in the world, Mr. Levy, did you get the idea that being discourteous means that others must profess to admire your reasoning and arguments as much as you do?? You and every other wikipedian and I.P. editor has an entitlement to free from ridicule for being what you are (your religion, your race, etcetera). Nothing on Wikipedia (including the lack of a “bright-line” rule for defining incivility) means that this and any other venue where vigorous discussion and debate occurs requires that others refrain from opining that the proposals and reasoning you put forth that seem to be shear nonsense are just that: nonsense. It’s an opinion and I spared your idea of one of my more onerous labels: that it is a metric ton of weapons‑grade bullonium. Now…

The proposed guideline to which you responded could not possibly be clearer that if YOU (I’m talking about David Levy now) don’t want to use typographer’s quotes, then you don’t have to. Yet you wrote This would require an enormous amount of effort… Well, just pardon me all over the place for pointing out that the guideline could also not have been clearer that for those articles that already consistently use typographer’s quotes, the only rule of the road you would be asked to abide by is to not exert an *enormous amount of effort* to undo others’ work since it is they who are perfectly free to exert such effort—and obviously already did. M‘kay??

Now please desist with that tired old Wikipedia tactic of posturing for an advantage by hiding behind the apron strings of how I was somehow discourteous and uncivil by having directed *hate speech* towards your clearly splendid ideas. Why don’t you just ante up with a “support” or “oppose” vote, below so we can all see whether we can agree on that little basic element of courtesy of simply not going out of one’s way to piss in other editors’ corn flakes. That’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just where in the world did you get the idea that I was criticising you for failing to agree with me or express admiration?

I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you didn't bother to read the proposal (or was too stupid to grasp it) is not. Calling us "dicks" (and "dick-holes" in the original revision) is not.

I don't seek to "hide behind" these issues or use them to my advantage. (Note that I haven't reported your incivility.) However, I don't care to waste my time with a futile attempt to explain my position (in a manner largely redundant to what I've already written) to someone who has dismissed my views as the nonsensical ravings of an ill-informed "dick."

If you wish to engage in respectful discourse (instead of dismissing dissenting opinions out of hand and assailing their authors), let me know. —

David Levy

22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I’ve been on a crash diet so I wasn’t in a mood to engage in the standard Wikipedia beat-around-the-bush horse crap that wastes time. See my 22:35 post, below, which I wrote before your response here. I see glimmers of a foundation upon which we have some common ground. Greg L (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to that message. I'd also be glad to address your above points (regarding perceived incongruities between your proposal and my objections thereto), provided that you're interested in hearing me out. —

David Levy

22:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Because I don’t go to Microsoft Word’s preferences to disable automatic generation of “smart quotes” based on the notion that typewriter quotes (“dumb quotes”?) are somehow better looking before I send my documents to clients. And—most importantly—I like being a good wikipedian citizen rather than someone who enjoys running around on Wikipedia and devoting extra effort to do nothing more than simply undo others’ work. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The MoS directs us to “follow the sources” and the """sources use typographic quotes—clearly, their use is desirable on that basis. As discussed by others above, the previous objections (per the current MoS) on technical grounds are no longer applicable (or no more significant than with other, currently recommended, non-ASCII characters). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  If our goal were to abide by external style conventions, we wouldn't need the MoS at all. We'd simply consult the AP Stylebook (or a similar publication) and call it a day. But it isn't feasible for a wiki to adopt 100% of the conventions used in another medium.
  It's been noted above that unlike the use of dashes instead of hyphens, there is absolutely no difference in meaning between the two types of quotation marks. It's reasonable to prefer one type's appearance, but neither is more correct than the other. —

  David Levy

  22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Now we’re seeing some convergence in views. I agree 100% with you, David. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That neither type of quotation mark is more correct? —

David Levy

22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Neither is more “correct.” Clearly, one doesn’t make a Word-doc incorrect by disabling “smart quotes” in the preferences. But by enabling it, one makes a Word-doc better. But typographer’s quotes a just as clearly a pain for editors stuck in front of computers running Barbarian-OS. Even some Mac people don’t want to horse around with them even though they are easily typed straight from the keyboard. This proposal would not change the principle that no editor is required to use typographer’s quotes. Proportional-spaced typefaces, and en‑dashes and em‑dashes (as distinct from simple hyphens) are all part of fine typography. The art of typography is all about making text as easy as possible for the eye (the “mind”, really) to follow. There is clearly a limit though; no one is advocating a flourish like the “fl” ligature (the word “flourish” uses that ligature). This is just about curly quotes in those articles that consistently use them. Some shepherding editors who’ve grown stubs into fine articles consistently use them and they look wonderful. The above proposal would just endorse a bit of etiquette that has long been observed on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, your proposal is based upon the assumption that curly quotation marks are "better." Presumably, this is why it includes no prohibition of a mass edit (perhaps on the part of someone who has decided to "

shepherd

" an article) to replace all instances of straight quotation marks with curly ones.

The assertion that curly quotation marks are "better" is very much in dispute. Unlike en dashes, em dashes and hyphens, there is absolutely no difference in meaning between a curly quotation mark and a straight quotation mark. Therefore, the issue is one of aesthetics. And even if we assume that the appearance of curly quotation marks is more widely preferred (which might or might not be true), they factually are substantially more difficult for most people to type.

Yes, I realize that you haven't proposed requiring that anyone type them. But you advocate a setup in which unnecessary inconsistency (i.e. inconsistency not required to avoid favoring a particular English variety) among articles is permitted and encouraged. I (and others) regard a consistent style as vastly more aesthetically pleasing.

Most of us agree that it's undesirable for a single article to contain mixed usage (apart from some specific exceptions). When I wrote that "this would require an enormous amount of effort," I was referring to effort on the part of editors monitoring articles to correct the never-ending introduction of straight quotation marks. You note that such a responsibility would belong to "shepherding authors" (an entirely optional role). But as I wrote in my reply to DGerman, users encountering such flaws would be forced to either actively participate in their correction (effectively becoming "shepherding editors") or stand back and allow the encyclopedia's quality to decline. "You're not obligated to clean up the resultant mess" (scare quotes) is of little solace to those of us who see no need to create such a mess in the first place. And what happens when an article's "shepherding author" stops editing it?

You've asserted that this change would merely formalize an accepted bit of Wikipedia etiquette, but I strongly disagree that there ever has been consensus for such a practice. Deviations from the MoS (including some that are considerably more obvious than this one is) frequently go uncorrected. The same is true of misspellings and flagrant factual inaccuracies. It's unreasonable to interpret these entities' retention as implicit approval. —

David Levy

23:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The community resoundingly does not want typographic quotes for several reasons listed above. This is simply an attempting to bypass consensus. All citation template would have to be forked into "straight quotes" vs. "curly quotes", as well as several other templates. The issue goes beyond a simple a lack of will from certain editors to "do the work".
  books
  } 23:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please dismount, kind sir, from your high horse as you blocketh the sunlight for the minions down below who don’t own MOS (as you apparently think you do). The only thing that is clear is you don’t like this proposal “for the reasons listed above”. User:Wrapped in Grey, above, should be quite disappointed that you have undertaken to declare that his opinion apparently doesn’t matter in this discussion because you’ve spoken for the community. And I’ll thank you very much to assume good faith by not declaring that my motives here are to bypass consensus. Do you think you own this place??? Try familiarizing yourself with

assume good faith and the breathtaking display of arrogance you just exhibited. Bypassing consensus is done by editing in artriclespace contrary to consensus. One does not “bypass consensus” by proposing guidelines on the talk pages a style guide like WP:MOS. The only thing about your vote that is clear as glass is that you reserve the right to wade into any article you can find and do nothing but replace smart quotes with typewriter quotes; an attitude I find utterly reprehensible. Editors should be drummed out of Wikipedia for that sort of attitude. Greg L (talk

) 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg L is being a little extreme here, Headbomb, but I must agree that starting a discussion to seek a new consensus does not constitute trying to bypass consensus. How else should we find out what the community wants than by asking? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you expect others to assume good faith, perhaps you should refrain from accusing editors with whom you disagree of commenting on a proposal that they haven't bothered to read.

And if you're going to accuse someone of "declar[ing] that [someone else's] opinion apparently doesn't matter," I suggest that you avoid equating your opponents with "people who vote for candidates in local elections based on who has the most *American*-sounding name" and lamenting the fact that "these people's votes count as much as anyone else's." —

David Levy

23:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

…And not one twit of what you wrote changes the fact that what Headbomb wrote is pure nonsense. Greg L (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Headbomb's assertion that your proposal constitutes an attempt to bypass consensus, but it's a stone thrown from a domicile constructed of non-glass materials. —

David Levy

00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For now, curly quotes should be removed on sight. Actually that applies to unnecessary Unicode in general. Unicode rendering is insufficiently supported and standardized — what looks good on one editor's screen may be appalling on another's. --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your charming post. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Though I agree with the concept, I might change the wording. I’m not sure I quite understand “a superset of fine typographic practices”, and I’d probably leave
  WP:DICK
  out of it (even though my actual thoughts are far stronger). I disagree with David Levy that the community “resoundingly does not want typographic quotes for several reasons listed”. The responders seem to be about 2–1 against them; whether or not this is resounding, I can’t say, but it certainly is not consensus. I also question whether the opposition is for the reasons stated, because honestly, most of them just don’t hold water, and some seem akin to “I want a regime change”. This isn’t to question anyone’s sincerity, but simply to suggest that most of the reasons seem half thought out.

• Typographical quotes look no better than straight quotes, or even typographical quotes are ugly. Perhaps a matter of opinion, but one that is at odds with hundreds of years of considered judgment of type designers and professional publishers. From CMoS, 16th ed., 6.112:

. . . These marks, which are available on any modern word processor, generally match the surrounding typeface. For a variety of reasons, including the limitations of typewriter-based keyboards, these marks are often rendered incorrectly. . . All software also includes a “default” mark ("); in published prose, this unidirectional mark, far more portable than typographer’s marks, nonetheless signals a lack of typographical sophistication. [emphasis added]

I don’t suggest that CMoS or any other guide is dispositive, but I do think it speaks with greater authority than the average WP editor.

• Typographical quotes look no different from straight quotes. Perhaps with some fonts on some monitors with certain browsers under certain conditions, but hardly universally true. They look far different under some conditions, and at worst cause no harm for others.
• Typographical quotes are too difficult to enter. There’s no disagreement that they require a slight extra effort, but it’s hardly a big deal. And the effort is no greater than for any other non-ASCII characters. As has been noted by several others, editors of other-language WP pages seem to have no problem using them; are those editors smarter than we are? I’ve used typographers’ quotes for almost 25 years, far longer than MS Word has had “smart” quotes, and I just don’t see the problem.
• Typographical quotes place too much burden on the average editor. We haven’t proposed that editors be forced to use them, though we do force (or at least demand) that editors use an em dash rather than two hyphens, so this argument makes no sense. As for possibly making lack of fine typographical skills a barrier to entry: we have articles for which the editors know little about simple punctuation, spelling, writing, the subject matter, reliable sourcing, reference formatting, and so on, so the lack of typographical skills seems a minor issue.
• Unlike dashes, typographical quotes do not alter the meaning. This simply is untrue; an em dash has always been represented on a typewriter by two hyphens, so there is no confusion. In many cases (perhaps except for compounds), a single hyphen used in place of an en dash doesn’t interfere with correct interpretation. There are characters for which there is no good typewriter approximation, but they’re comparatively infrequent. If we really think that non-ASCII characters are too difficult to enter, we should allow any typewriter approximations that don’t hinder interpretation.
• I simply do not understand Trovatore’s assertion that “Unicode rendering is insufficiently supported and standardized”; could we have some examples? Except for em, en, and thin spaces with Opera, I have no problem displaying anything in List of XML and HTML character entity references; although that list doesn't include all Unicode characters, it’s the vast preponderance of what might be needed for WP articles.
• Allowing typographical quotes would lead to inconsistency. Article-to-article, probably true, but we already allow considerable inconsistency (e.g., unspaced em dashes vs. spaced en dashes, reference styles, treatment of some mathematical symbols, American vs. British English), so concern about the impact of typographical quotes is a red herring. Intra-article consistency is another matter, which would be addressed by some of the proposed changes.
• Typographical quotes interfere with searches. Just enter the typographical quote character in the search box. And how often to people really search for quotes, anyway?

I don’t suggest that my thoughts are the last word on the topic, and I’m sure that some of those opposed to typographical quotes can (and will) rebut them, but in aggregate, I find most of the sometimes vitriolic opposition utterly unpersuasive. There’s one other thing to note: the MoS currently recommends but does not mandate straight quotes, and does not even require intra-article consistency. The various proposed changes at least address the latter; though the opponents in the recent discussions are in the majority, I see nothing even approaching consensus to change the recommendation to a mandate. JeffConrad (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. You've attributed a comment by Headbomb to me.

2. As noted above, pointing out that editors wouldn't be forced to use the curly quotation marks is the same as saying "You're not required to clean up the resultant mess." Some of us don't want an unnecessary mess to be made (which would require us to either assist in its cleanup or stand back and tolerate it).

3. The use of two hyphens to represent an em dash is a makeshift solution in which two instances of a mark are combined to approximate the appearance of one instance of a different mark. Conversely, a straight quotation mark is a single mark whose correct meaning is identical to that of a curly quotation mark. The two situations simply aren't comparable.

4. Most of Wikipedia's inconsistencies stem from differences among the various English varieties. Where this is not an issue, consistency is preferred (hence the existence of a style guide). Heck, we even use logical punctuation throughout the encyclopedia, despite its absence from conventional American English.

Does this mean that we're required to favor consistency when feasible? No. But some of us want to. You're pointing out that we don't have to, thereby ignoring the fact that arguments in favor of consistency stem from actual preference, not a sense of obligation.

5. I disagree with your interpretation of the MoS. We seldom use ironclad wording (and most rules have

David Levy

03:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. My apologies for the misattribution—sometimes these threads are tough to follow. Quite honestly, the comment does seem to reflect your position. I still strongly disagree with the comment, regardless of who made it.

2. I guess I don’t see “the resultant mess” that would need cleanup; all of the proposed revisions mandate intra-article consistency, and place the onus for maintaining it on those who would use typographical quotes. I think this is much ado about nothing.

3. So what? The case can be made (as in CMoS) that because opening and closing quotes are different (something I learned in grade school), a single straight quote is not the same character. The case also can be made that a straight quote is a nonexistent character in typeset material; it really depends on how nutty we want to get.

4. I guess I see far more inconsistencies than just varieties of English. I’m very much a believer in consistency, but take issue with those who would wield the sword of consistency capriciously and inconsistently. Compared with the variations in citation style, the difference in quotes is invisible. And there are some of us who don’t care for amateurish typography. Again, I won’t say that straight quotes are “wrong”, but I can cite many sources that support the use of typographical quotes; I doubt that you could cite many to the contrary. I honestly wouldn’t have such strong objections if it were decided that we would avoid all non-ASCII characters (including those represented in HTML entities) as much as practical; my objection is to the capriciously differential treatment.

5. My interpretation is based on what the MoS says; we seem to have no problem saying no when that’s what we mean, e.g., “Do not use substitutes for em or en dashes, such as the combination of two hyphens (--). These were typewriter approximations.” Quite ironic given that the straight quote was a typewriter approximation as well . . . As to “you're mistaken”, is this a threat and are you the chief enforcer? What a way to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia . . . I think we should bear in mind, as the project page register points out, the original admonition to use straight quotes was a capricious change by one editor, with no discussion, and it has apparently been used to justify the “status quo” ever since. I don’t dispute that many editors, perhaps a majority of those who’ve participated in the endless discussions of the topic, oppose typographical quotes, but there also are a significant number of editors who disagree. If that represents consensus for banning typographical quotes, then I guess I don’t understand what the word means. JeffConrad (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I never doubted that the misattribution was accidental.

No, such a claim does not reflect my position. While there appears to be more opposition, the proposals also have drawn a significant amount of support (and I've stated in no uncertain terms that I disapprove of out-of-hand dismissal of viewpoints contrary to one's own).

I've based my arguments upon reasons why I (along with others) regard the consistent use of straight quotation marks as preferable.

2. "The resultant mess" refers to the intra-article inconsistency that would arise via the never-ending introduction of straight quotation marks. Again, the explanation that only willing editors would be responsible for the corrections simply doesn't suffice. The rest of us would encounter these flaws, forcing us to either participate in the cleanup efforts or tolerate their presence while awaiting intervention by the "shepherding authors" (assuming that they still monitor and edit the affected articles).

3. Indeed, an opening quotation mark and closing quotation mark serve separate purposes. But a straight quotation mark serves exactly the same purpose as one or the other (depending on its placement). In normal usage, a pair of straight quotation marks functions identically to a pair of curly quotation marks (without any difference in meaning or correctness).

4a. I agree that Wikipedia already contains avoidable inconsistencies. We should be working to eliminate them, not introducing new ones.

4b. While straight quotation marks certainly are simpler than their curly counterparts are, I disagree that they're "amateurish." I regard them as appropriate for use in the wiki medium, which varies from other media in significant respects.

4c. Several of us have explained why we regard curly quotation marks as contextually incomparable to other non-ASCII characters in use within the English Wikipedia.

5a. No, I assure you that I'm not issuing any sort of threat. I neither possess nor claim to possess greater authority on this matter than that of any editor in good standing.

5b. Most of our rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. The addition of an MoS entry without advance discussion can be perfectly appropriate and uncontroversial, provided that it reflects actual practice. For the same reason, "the rules say so" is not a valid argument. (In other words, this rule has remained because the practice that it documents has remained, not the reverse.)

We generally require consensus for article elements' inclusion, not for their exclusion. —

David Levy

07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why you “regard curly quotation marks as contextually incomparable to other non-ASCII characters” is of little relevance: we are directed to “follow the sources”—something that you choose to ignore but which is a guiding principle of the MoS. “Straight quotation marks ... [are] appropriate”—observing quality on-line publishers such as The Times, The New York Times, and Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests otherwise. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded directly to this statement when you wrote it previously, so I'm rather puzzled by your claim that I "choose to ignore" it. —

David Levy

11:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You responded to the statement ‘the MoS directs us to “follow the sources” ’ with “if our goal were to abide by external style conventions, we wouldn't need the MoS”—an apparent attempt to contradict/ignore the guideline. You went on to mention the difficulties of “adopt[ing] 100% of the conventions used in another medium” (which had not been suggested) and argued the case against typographic characters based on your personal opinion of their merit—clearly at odds with “follow the sources”. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. You seem to be interpreting "follow the sources" to mean "laboriously and indiscriminately emulate style conventions employed by others." That isn't what it means. We look to high-quality sources for guidance, but we're permitted to weigh various considerations and determine what works best for Wikipedia.

2. I'm not implying that anyone actually advocated adopting 100% of the conventions used in another medium. My point is that you're failing to consider the possibility that the needs and realistic goals of a wiki might differ from those of a professionally edited publication in this instance.

3. No, I made the factual statement that neither type of quotation mark is more correct than the other is (irrespective of personal preferences or those of external sources).

4. As noted by JohnBlackburne, many (perhaps most) high-quality online sources favor straight quotation marks. —

David Levy

14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not notice this the first time, but 'such as' implyies such usage is typical, while I find when reading "quality" online sources that straight quotes are almost always used, by e.g. the BBC, The Economist, The Guardian, CNN and The Telegraph. The only news site I visit which uses curly quotes is the NYT. And that is the exception: all other sites including many more less quality ones use straight quotes. So if we are to as you suggest "follow the sources" we should use straight quotes.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest “follow the sources”; the MoS suggests it. However, the publishers I listed were not an attempt to list typical sources (did you not spot Britannica in the list?); they were listed to show the feasibility/appropriateness (denied by others) of using these characters in an on-line medium. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Then it should be pointed out that the efforts expended by such publications to maintain and enforce such style choices are quite significant. What newspapers generally have is a dedicated staff of copy editors to turn raw copy into newsprint. The last newspaper office I worked in had a dozen people working full time on this, and it was a quite small circulation (though high quality) newspaper. They had to fix errors, make sure the copy fitted the layout and followed the paper's editorial policy, and enforce the house style. And it is enforced, so it is consistently one style, not a mix of two which mean exactly the same but are just visually different as some are advocating here, which will be a lot more work to deal with and generate a lot more pointless edits as quotes are added then changed across many thousands of articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Who has claimed that it's unfeasible or inappropriate to use curly quotation marks in an online medium? And if many (perhaps most) high-quality online publications use straight quotation marks, how are we failing to "follow the sources"? —

David Levy

14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors made comments along the lines of “how do you even type them”; you used the words “isn't feasible”, one would assume in reference to the subject; you also suggested that “straight quotation marks ... [are] appropriate for use in the wiki medium, which varies from other media in significant respects” which would suggest that you believe typographic quotation marks to be inappropriate—apologies if this is not the case. There seems to be some confusion regarding the MoS’s use here of the words “high-quality sources”; my assumption is that (as with other sections of the MoS where it is stated explicitly) this refers to (the) article sources (not sources in general), which, in my experience, tend to be printed works (where typographic characters are used almost exclusively). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I stated that "it isn't feasible for a wiki to adopt 100% of the conventions used in another medium," by which I meant that one must expect a wiki's style to deviate from those of other media in some respects. I didn't intend to imply that it wouldn't be feasible for us to use curly quotation marks.

Indeed, I regard straight quotation marks as appropriate for use in the wiki medium (my point being that while one would expect to see curly quotation marks in print media and even on some websites, the circumstances under which a wiki is written justify the use of straight quotation marks). That doesn't mean that curly quotation marks are inappropriate for use on a website (including a wiki), but I've explained why I regard the exclusive use of straight quotation marks within our articles (apart from specific exceptions) as advantageous.

We refer to sources relevant to the matter at hand. In this case, the typographical conventions employed by print media, particularly where they differ from those of online media, are of little relevance (hence our lack of paragraph indentation, for example). —

David Levy

15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to the assertion that "straight quotation marks ... [are] appropriate," you stated that "observing quality on-line publishers such as The Times, The New York Times, and Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests otherwise." How so, and how does this jibe with your above explanation? —

David Levy

14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply that the 1st 3 sites that I checked to see if whether-or-not they used typographic quotes, did use them (though not always exclusively) and that this may indicate that the FUD (“can’t be typed”, “can’t be seen”, “won’t render correctly”, etc.) is unwarranted. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally disagree with the "can't be seen" and "won't render correctly" arguments. It isn't literally true that the marks "can't be typed," but they certainly are substantially more difficult for most wiki editors (as opposed to professional publications' authors) to generate. —

David Levy

15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I then apologize for ass-u-m(e)ing your position. I shall henceforth take greater care to avoid doing so.

2. You’re probably correct that many (most?) editors would not bother to read the guideline, let alone practice it. And some “shepherds” would probably default on their obligations. But if I were to look at areas of Wikipedia that need attention, even intra-article, inconsistencies would not even register in comparison with variations in citation/reference style, and even more, unsourced nonsense (of which there is all too much).

3. Yes and no; typographical quotes are immediately be recognized as beginning and ending quotations (or “so-called” material in the case of “scare quotes”). And if it’s really that simple to do the same thing with straight quotes, a bot could probably be written that would do the cleanup and get it right as often as most current bots do with other things. If indeed the mess were to materialize.

4b. Perhaps “amateurish” is overly pejorative, but as CMoS observe, it’s long been one of the most obvious indicators of typographical unsophistication, and a reminder of one down side of the demise of typesetters. Few people who know much about typography use straight quotes; but perhaps few people know (or care) much about typography. I also guess I don’t see why the “wiki medium” is so different in this regard. To be fair, the use of straight quotes in online versions of major newspapers seems to be the rule rather than the exception, but online content there often uses only ASCII characters, including either single or double hyphens for em dashes. I wish some of the folks who say that that straight quotes look fine would generate a PDF using a serif typeface (still used overwhelmingly in professionally published material); the straight quotes stand out like a sore thumb, and because they clash with the patterns of the rest of the characters, even if most readers don’t quite realize it.

I went through this exercise almost 25 years ago. I had read AT&T’s reports claiming that typeset material could be read 27% faster, and was skeptical to say the least. When we did some actual testing, we were somewhat surprised to find, to a person, that if anything, AT&T had understated the case. We also had the same reaction to straight quotes, and strongly discouraged their use. I won’t suggest that typographical quotes made a 27% difference, but the glaring distraction of straight quotes was clearly evident to everyone involved. We used serif typefaces for most running text, so this undoubtedly influenced the perception. Now perhaps we were unusual (or I put the fear of dog into everyone), but type designers and professional publishers seem to share the perception we had.

4c. And those who see little difference between quotes and many other non-ASCII characters have explained why we feel as we do. I’ll be the first to say that different is never the same, but there is such a thing as reasonable equivalence. For the life of me, I cannot see why an em dash is not reasonably equivalent to two hyphens; yes, the latter are two marks, but so what? They’ve been recognized as an em dash since before any of us was born, so it seems to me we’re nitpicking. And an x is a different character from ×, but in the appropriate context, the former is easily recognized as representing the latter, so again, what is the problem? I guess on this issue, the two groups agree to disagree.

5a. Perhaps I overreacted, but the comment did seem a bit confrontational. And again, the MoS reads as it reads. My approach is to say what’s meant and interpret according to what’s said, much as judges (or at least many of them) require of legislators and contract authors; vague laws and contracts are invalid for good reason.

5b. I hardly suggest that every addition to the MoS (or an article) needs prior discussion—were that required, nothing would ever get done. In this case, however, though it undoubtedly reflected the most common practice, it’s obvious that many editors have disagreed almost from the beginning, so it’s difficult to maintain that it reflects consensus. And that is the basis of my objection. JeffConrad (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks for that.  :)

2. I agree that Wikipedia already has issues significantly worse than any that I foresee arising as a result of the proposed changes. I believe that said changes would be harmful, but I don't mean to imply that the harm would be catastrophic.

3. Do you mean that curly quotation marks result in superior communication?

Regarding the deployment of bots, I regard this as a good idea (irrespective of what style[s] we ultimately settle upon).

4b. It's true that such perceptions historically have prevailed, but times change and language evolves. Just as it no longer is widely regarded as unsophisticated to say "you are" instead of "thou art," the stigma attached to straight quotation marks has faded and continues to do so. Content is conforming to the new media (instead of the reverse).

4c. In my view, there is a substantial difference between visual approximation and 1:1 equivalence. A hyphen is a distinct mark with its own meaning. Combining two of them is intended to simulate the appearance of (i.e. pretend to display) an em dash. Conversely, a pair of straight quotation marks is directly equivalent to a pair of curly quotation marks (despite its slightly different appearance). The characters possess no separate meaning and are used exclusively for this purpose (in ordinary prose, that is). And of course, we also use en dashes.

However, I understand your view, just as you understand mine. It largely comes down to a matter of where to draw the line (with mine drawn halfway between the two that you regard as most logical). So yes, let's agree to disagree.

5a. I didn't intend to be confrontational (and I apologize for coming across in such a manner).

When the MoS indicates that one style is "recommended" and another is "not recommended," this does not mean that said advice may optionally be ignored (beyond the

no one possesses special editorial control of articles published here

, including those that they create or dramatically improve. In other words, no one has the right to label him/herself a "shepherding author" (Greg L's terminology) and exert authority as to the style in which an article is written. Someone performing his/her first edit to an article has as much say as someone who's worked on it for years.

Therefore, if we interpret the advice in question as optional, it encourages users to engage in edit wars, flipping back and forth between the two styles (despite the fact that one is "recommended" and the other is "not recommended") according to their personal preferences. The prevention of such problems is one of the MoS's most important purposes.

5b. It might be true that there is no consensus to disallow the use of curly quotation marks in general prose. However, there certainly isn't consensus for their allowance. As noted above, we generally require consensus for article elements' inclusion, not for their exclusion. —

David Levy

11:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

3. In some cases, yes. The following three lines are, in one sense, equivalent:

He said, "She said".

He said, "She said".

He said, “She said”.

But different is never the same; there’s a considerable difference in readability. The most obvious improvement is the change from monospace to proportional font, but there’s also a noticeable difference with quotes that match the surrounding typeface. Now these passages are so short that the differences are probably of little consequence, and the differences are definitely more apparent in a serif typeface. I’m sure not everyone will agree, but what I’ve said reflects the considered judgment of type designers for hundreds of years, so it’s hardly off the wall.

4b. Certainly, almost everything changes with time. I don’t necessarily agree with regard to typography; typographical quotes remain the norm in print, and many web publishers (and their readers) simply may not know better. When I started using proportional type, it was relatively new outside of professional publishing, and the only examples were printed sources from professional publishers, and of course they used typographical quotes. The use of typewriter quotes (along with a hyphen for em dash and a minus sign; few even knew what an en dash was) was a dead giveaway that the author was a newbie. With time, non-professional publishing has become far more common, and perhaps what originally stood out no longer does. Like several others, I’ve readily acknowledged that straight quotes are the norm in online versions of most of the mainstream press. Absent information from a reliable source, I would make no assumptions about why this is done. As I’ve also mentioned, much of this material is all over the map for other non-ASCII characters: hyphens and double hyphens (and sometimes actual dashes) for em dashes as one example. This hardly argues that online style is carefully scrutinized. One thing that has changed is that traditional news publishers have cut back to the bone, and this undoubtedly includes copy editors.

4c. I hear you but don’t agree with you. No disputing that one mark isn’t the same as two, but in this case, I’d say they’re functionally equivalent.

5a. When “not recommended” is used in one instance, and “do not” is used in another, by any reasonable standard the former is not mandatory. Who makes the official interpretation of the MoS? I’d say that if it even needs interpretation, we have a problem.

Though a first-time editor may have the same general rights as anyone else, this certainly is not license to disregard prevailing style, as we state many places in Wikipedia policy. The general rule, in many places express, in others implied, is stare decisis for matters of pure style; this reflects simple common sense as well as common courtesy. Were it otherwise, articles would be in constant turmoil. When I’m the first to add references, I usually use author-date; when I add references to an existing list, I honor the prevailing style. There are any number of options, many of which we’ve already discussed, that are far more susceptible to edit warring than quotes.

5b. In this instance, the inclusion of straight quotes effectively excludes typographical quotes, and I would disagree that the inclusion or the equivalent exclusion reflects consensus.

In responding to Wrapped in Grey, you said, “the circumstances under which a wiki is written justify the use of straight quotation marks”; what exactly does this mean? I’m tempted to suggest an answer, but recent experience suggests I’m better off not doing so. JeffConrad (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

3. I honestly perceive no difference in readability. Some have opined that straight quotation marks are more readable, another position with which I disagree. To me (and obviously, this is highly subjective), there is no difference in readability or clarity.

I am, of course, highly accustomed to seeing curly quotation marks in professional print media (to the extent that straight ones would appear sloppy). But online media incorporate different conventions. We also omit paragraph indentation, the absence of which arguably is more obvious.

4b. Indeed, straight quotation marks are the norm in online versions of most of the mainstream press. We need not make any assumptions as to why, let alone speculate that these publishers "may not know better." For whatever reason, in online media, straight quotation marks are not widely regarded as substandard.

Therefore, we can safely use them without fear of embarrassment. This, of course, doesn't mean that we must use them; it means that we can base our decision upon other factors.

No one has disputed that straight quotation marks are significantly easier for most editors to generate (so no matter what style[s] we select, most editors will continue to type them). There is disagreement regarding the acceptability of inter-article inconsistency (with some seeing no problem, while others regard it as highly undesirable), but there is agreement that intra-article consistency (apart from specific exceptions) is needed.

All of this points to the use of straight quotation marks. As far as I can tell, when the matter of professionalism is removed from the equation (in light of the fact that most professional online publications favor straight quotation marks), the argument in favor of curly ones boils down to "we think that they look better."

4c. Darkfrog24 explained it well: [Both] forms of quotation marks are correct and proper. "--" is not a real em dash but " is a real quotation mark.

Surely, you recognize the distinction (though it's perfectly reasonable to regard it as unimportant). We're agreeing to disagree, yes?

From a practical standpoint, another material difference is the fact that no representation of em dashes serves as a de facto standard among members of the general public (and by extension, this wiki's editors). Some people type two hyphens. Some people type one hyphen. Some people generate actual em dashes (via various means). Some people place spaces before and after, while others don't. So no matter what style[s] we favor, a considerable amount of cleanup (for the sake of intra-article consistency, at the very least) is necessary.

Conversely, most editors type straight quotation marks, so maintaining such a style is easier and less time-consuming than any alternative would be.

5a. If the advice isn't mandatory (apart from

exceptions justified by specific circumstances

), what purpose does it serve? What sense does the interpretation "x is recommended and y is not recommended, but feel free to do whatever you please" make? How does such an approach not encourage "constant turmoil" (i.e. edit warring)?

The stare decisis principal applies to situations in which multiple styles are equally valid. For example, no English variety would be uniquely appropriate for an article about a subject lacking strong ties to a particular nation. So if the first substantive revision happens to be written in Australian English, it probably shouldn't be changed to a different variety. (I say "probably" because legitimate reasons occasionally arise. For example, we moved

Check (finance) to Cheque

[and switched from American English to British English] because this enabled us to use a title lacking parenthetical disambiguation.) Conversely, a style not compliant with the MoS is not equally valid to one that is.

Furthermore, this proposal includes no concept of honoring the existing style of an article containing straight quotation marks. It allows a "shepherding author" to stake a claim, converting all straight quotation marks to curly ones (which would instantly become sacrosanct). It would effectively designate curly quotation marks as the preferred style, with straight ones permitted as temporary placeholders in articles that have not yet been "

shepherded

."

5b. "Consensus" means more than "agreement among persons discussing something." Among editors of this wiki (few of whom will ever see this page), straight quotation marks overwhelmingly predominate.

I assume (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) that you would question why (and perhaps speculate that most of our editors "may not know better"). I assert that we need not concern ourselves with the reason, which simply doesn't matter.

This is not an argumentum ad populum. An error should not be permitted to stand, regardless of the extent to which it predominates. But as discussed above, both straight and curly quotation marks are correct and proper. So if we're to have an encyclopedia-wide standard (as some of us advocate), it's sensible to select the style overwhelmingly favored by its editors (even if only because it's generated with greater convenience).

By "the circumstances under which a wiki is written justify the use of straight quotation marks," I was referring to the fact that a wiki, unlike a professional publication, is written primarily by persons to whom curly quotation marks are relatively inaccessible, with no editorial hierarchy through which content is standardized or point at which it's finalized. —

David Levy

16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

3. That’s an opinion to which you are certainly entitled, but as several of us have noted repeatedly: it’s at odds with centuries of opinion of type designers an publishers. Perhaps they have it wrong . . .

4b. With regard to inter-article consistency, the MoS reads as it reads; perhaps the current wording does not reflect consensus. Most encyclopedias disallow inter-article variations, including reference style and Engvar. I have difficulty seeing that fly here.

4c. Darkfrog24 stated, without support, that “both forms of quotation marks are correct and proper”. This again is a matter of opinion; the one authoritative guide I have that mentions it disagrees, and to the other guides the straight marks do not even exist. I remain unpersuaded.

5a. I can’t answer the question other to say advice is advice. I’ve had a fair amount of involvement with standards organizations, including style guides therefor, and have no problem distinguishing between advisory, permissive, and mandatory language. The interpretation you give is your opinion of what is meant, and is at odds with the plain words. Now perhaps the current wording does not say what is meant, but I suppose that the intended meaning is yet another issue for which it would be difficult to find consensus. JeffConrad (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

3. That's a false dilemma.

4b. Indeed, Wikipedia's style differs substantially from that of any professional guide (and I thank you for acknowledging this). But we generally regard inter-article consistency as beneficial, excepting difference related to English varieties. And we even use logical punctuation throughout the encyclopedia, despite its absence from conventional American English.

4c. Whether curly quotation marks are preferable to straight ones (and vice versa) is highly debatable. But the belief that straight quotation marks actually are incorrect (as opposed to merely stylistically inferior) clearly is not widely held by our editors or the participants in this discussion.

Professional style guides, contrary to our MoS, are prescriptive rather than descriptive. They've been slow to address the Internet (including its terminology) and acknowledge its stylistic differences. It made headlines when the AP Stylebook finally switched from "Web site" to "website" (reflecting longstanding common usage).

As you noted, most of the guides that you consulted don't even acknowledge straight quotation marks' existence. And yet, there they are, widely used on professional websites (including those of publishers whose print editions contain curly quotation marks).

You're exactly right. The passage was sloppily written. And if its wording had been clarified at the time, we wouldn't be discussing it in this context. But now that we're having this debate, such a change would be perceived as an attempt to modify the text's intent.

But again, if the "recommended" style isn't mandatory (apart from

exceptions justified by specific circumstances

), what purpose does it serve? What sense does the interpretation "x is recommended and y is not recommended, but feel free to do whatever you please" make? If that's so, why even bother recommending a particular style?

As previously noted, our MoS is descriptive, not prescriptive. If it doesn't accurately describe our conventions, it should be revised. And of course,

David Levy

12:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

But the MoS is proscriptive. It tells people what to do on Wikipedia. We occasionally mention something about the prevalence or origins of a given rule but only as that serves the document's main purpose. That's as it should be. We have source-citing articles like question mark and title case for handling the descriptive aspects of the language. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Do you mean "proscriptive" or "prescriptive"? (This is not a spelling nitpick, as either plausibly could be suggested).

2. Regardless, the MoS is descriptive. As noted below, it describes current practices (as determined both by analyzing those that prevail and by discussing possibilities and deciding what works best).

Meanwhile, a style manual like the AP Styleguide or the Chicago Manual of Style hands down decisions from above. From a practical standpoint, the distinction is that publications following such a manual can legitimately decide to apply a particular convention "because the guide says so" (no analysis required). Some occasionally opt to deviate, but this is optional and relatively uncommon.

Conversely, if someone objects to an entry from Wikipedia's MoS (on the basis that it either doesn't accurately describe current practice or a belief that said practice ought to be modified), we have discussions such as this one. And my point is that within such discussions, there's little need to debate an entry's disputed meaning (because we're here to determine what makes the most sense and describe that in the MoS, not to blindly abide by whatever already has been written there). —

David Levy

05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The MOS, as all

guidelines, is supposed to describe the best current practice on Wikipedia. It does fail at this sometimes, though. A. di M. (talk

) 15:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. —

David Levy

16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

3. In all honesty, I don’t know what you mean by this.

4b. Logical punctuation is undoubtedly the work of a few disgruntled Brits . . . though it’s not my normal style, it’s at least logically defensible, and most people other than Amurricans use it.

4c. I guess it depends on why they might be preferable (i.e., they work better or they’re easier to enter).

If the MoS is descriptive rather than prescriptive, then editors can do as they damn well please, and it falls upon those who maintain the MoS to describe what the various miscreants are doing . . .

“And if its wording had been clarified at the time”. If you lived here, you’d be home by now. For good or for ill, it reads as it reads.

I think I’ve addressed the purpose the current wording might serve. JeffConrad (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Unless I've misunderstood (in which case I apologize), you've represented that there two possibilities:

A) Curly quotation marks are inherently clearer and more readable than straight quotation marks are.

B) For hundreds of years, type designers and publishers have been "wrong" to use them.

4b. I don't know the background behind the decision to adopt logical punctuation across the board, but it's an example of our general preference for inter-article consistency. It isn't a typical example, of course, as we usually draw the line where conventions vary among English varieties. That we've even crossed that line in this instance illustrates the extent to which inter-article consistency is valued.

4c. No, I haven't claimed that all of the practices described arise spontaneously. We frequently engage in discussion to determine what conventions to adopt (as we're doing now). Prevailing preferences aren't sacrosanct, but they must be taken into account. Otherwise, a handful of editors could unfairly impose their preferences on the entire community (and even now, this sometimes is alleged).

It's entirely possible, of course, for a majority of people to be wrong about something (in which case it's sensible to correct them). But almost no one has suggested that straight quotation marks are incorrect. So to ignore the community's overwhelming preference (including among editors unfamiliar with the MoS) is unreasonable.

I asked you to explain how the interpretation "x is recommended and y is not recommended, but feel free to do whatever you please" makes sense from a practical standpoint, and you replied that you "can't answer the question other to say advice is advice." (In other words, as long as the words make linguistic sense, it doesn't matter if the message conveyed is utterly pointless.) —

David Levy

19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Let’s see if I can’t make a better attempt at discerning the purpose. Let’s look just at the text we propose the to change:

The exclusive use of straight quotation marks and apostrophes (see preceding section) is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with some searches, such as those using the browser's search facility (a search for Alzheimer's disease could fail to find Alzheimer’s disease and vice versa). Furthermore, HTML elements (such as <ref name="xxx"/>) may not always work if curly quotation marks are used.

Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, make a redirect from the same title but using the alternative glyphs.

Let’s take the key elements individually:

1. “They are easier to type in reliably”. If an editor is willing to make the effort and capable of doing so reliably, this presumably is not an issue.
2. “and to edit” I honestly don’t know what this means. Perhaps it simply suggests that inconsistencies will arise from subsequent edits; if an editor is willing to watch the article and maintain consistency, this also is not an issue.
3. “Mixed use interferes with some searches”. If the reference is to the effect of intra-article inconsistency on a search within an article (and I’m not certain that it is), this probably is correct, especially for a search for an apostrophe. It’s much less of an issue if an editor maintains intra-article consistency. I’ll concede that even with consistent use of a typographical apostrophe, a search may be more difficult for a user who does not know how to enter the characters into the browser’s search box, but I wonder how many intra-article searches really involve quotes or apostrophes. Again, if we really think such searches are common, we should ban as many non-ASCII characters as is practicable.
4. “HTML elements (such as <ref name="xxx"/>) may not always work if curly quotation marks are used”. No question about the intent here, and no disagreement. As nearly as I can tell, typographical quotes simply do not work. Though I can’t seem to find an explicit ban in the HTML 4.01 specification, the only character mentioned for quoting attribute values is U+0022 (").
5. “Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear in article titles, make a redirect from the same title but using the alternative glyphs”. Because the type of “quotation marks” isn’t given, this is somewhat ambiguous, but several re-reads suggest that it means “if you do use typographical quotes or apostrophes in a article title, make a redirect from the same title using the typewriter characters.” It’s also possible, though less plausible, to interpret this as calling for a redirect from a title using typographical characters to the article title that uses the typewriter characters.

In sum, the most plausible interpretation is to the effect of “we recommend that you not use typographical quotes, because it’s easy to get them wrong, but if you must do so, create redirects to facilitate searches using the typewriter characters”. In any event, it’s almost impossible to interpret it as a ban unless the words have different meanings from those in any dictionary I’ve ever read. JeffConrad (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Are you suggesting that most editors are willing to make the effort to generate curly quotation marks and capable of doing so reliably?

2. It means, I think, that subsequent editors are likely to experience difficulty matching the curly quotation marks (whether adding new quotation marks or retyping the preexisting ones when performing major revisions that lead to their removal from the edit window).

I've expressed my objections to the assumption that "an editor is willing to watch the article and maintain consistency."

3. From my perspective, this is one of the weaker arguments against the use of curly quotation marks.

5. This hasn't been followed particularly well, but we're supposed to redirect from plausible search terms (including variants containing whatever similar characters aren't used in the article's title). This has absolutely no bearing on which characters we favor, which this text needn't address. (Whether we use straight quotation marks exclusively, use curly quotation marks exclusively or use a combination of the two, the principle will apply.) —

David Levy

12:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

5b. I agree that consensus may mean more than agreement among those discussing something, but disagree that it is necessarily determined but disagree that it equates to predominant practice.

As regards “correct and proper”, as I mentioned in 4c, this has been alleged but unsupported. Not everyone agrees. And it appears that we probably shall not.

I agree that a wiki is written primarily by persons to whom curly quotation marks are relatively inaccessible, but as many of us have stated many, many times, this is true for any non-ASCII character, so the argument just doesn’t hold water. Many editors are unfamiliar with many aspects of proper style for WP (or any other formal publication), and will continue to be so. As I’ve said repeatedly, the consequent cleanup makes quotes seem trivial.

The issue of paragraph indention is completely irrelevant. The non-indented style probably predominates on the web because prior to CSS, it was impossible without multiple nonbreaking spaces. At present the decision to indent or not indent is handled by a simple change in CSS—essentially the same way it would be done with printed media, though the formatting software would usually be different. And to further the point, the default style for body text in MS word is block style, just as we use here.

There certainly are some significant differences between printed and online media, such as pagination vs. galley display that we use here, but typography and formatting don’t fall into this category. For example, depending on the editing application used to create a document, the result can be sent to a printer, made into a web page, or a PDF file; the typography or formatting of the output doesn’t change because of the destination medium unless the author goes to great lengths to make it so. Now I would not normally use MS word for a web page, so perhaps there is some issue of the editing application, but it’s hardly one related to the appropriate presentation for particular media. JeffConrad (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that consensus "equates to predominant practice." My point is that we must consider more than the personal opinions of the users participating in this discussion.

I address the "correct and proper" issue above.

I've explained my (and others') perceived distinctions between quotation marks and non-ASCII characters (such as dashes) "many, many times" (including in the message to which you're responding).

In another message, I acknowledged that "no matter what style[s] we select, some cleanup of inconsistent usage within articles is unavoidable." I then explained that "the allowance of curly quotation marks (either exclusively or optionally) can only cause the need to soar."

While it's merely an example, my point regarding paragraph indentation (and our lack thereof) is that we obviously don't aspire to emulate all of the basic style conventions widely followed in print media.

I don't assert that straight quotation marks inherently provide a more "appropriate presentation" online. The only presentational advantages that I cite pertain to matters of consistency and navigation.

Most of the advantages to using straight quotation marks throughout the encyclopedia directly relate to the article's creation and maintenance (which, of course, affect presentation).

In other words, I don't claim that a finished product appearing online is worse if it consistently contains curly quotation marks instead of straight ones. A major element of the equation is the fact that Wikipedia and its articles never become finished products. —

David Levy

12:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of us agree that personal opinions are largely unpersuasive. I again defer to the overwhelming preponderance of widely used style guides.

I should think it obvious that “correct and proper” is a matter of opinion.

Again, I’ve seen nothing at all convincing about why quotation marks merit special treatment.

With regard to indention, this has nothing to do with the alleged difference between print and online media.

So in essence, the advantage of straight quotes is that they’re easier to enter? JeffConrad (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Others defer to the overwhelming preponderance of websites (including those whose print versions follow those style guides). I prefer to focus primarily upon the proposals' direct and indirect effects on the encyclopedia and its editors.

2. Indeed, "correct and proper" is a matter of opinion. And straight quotation are regarded as correct and proper by a vast, vast majority of people (including those who regard curly quotation marks as stylistically superior).

An example of something obviously not correct and proper would be substitution of the letter "K" for the letter "C" (as in "The kat krossed the kobblestone road."). Conversely, →"← (excluding the arrows) is a legitimate quotation mark.

3. No one has opined that quotation marks "merit special treatment." We advocate that they be treated in the manner overwhelmingly prevalent on the Internet.

We've thoroughly explained our perceived distinctions between curly quotation marks and other non-ASCII characters. You're entitled, of course, to remain unconvinced, but please don't imply that no case has been made. We've agreed to disagree on this point, yes?

4. I don't understand your statement about paragraph indentation. Are you suggesting that such a style element is not employed across most print media and omitted from most online equivalents?

5. Various advantages of straight quotation marks (including some with which I don't entirely agree) have been cited ad nauseam. Most (but not all) of the arguments that I regard as strongest can be traced back to the fact that straight quotation marks are easier to enter (resulting in a situation in which problems will arise if curly quotation marks are permitted in general prose). I hope that I needn't elaborate yet again. —

David Levy

19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

1. No disputing common web use; whether common practice here is deference is possibly debatable. A glance at web typography also shows that it’s pretty sloppy on all other non-ASCII characters; what has struck me from the beginning is that WP goes with the common typewriter quotes yet is so fussy about the other special characters. That’s simply schizoid; were there not this disparity, I probably not have started the discussion.

2. “[S]traight quotation [marks] are regarded as correct and proper by a vast, vast majority of people”. How do we know this? Based on many years’ experience with non-professional authors writing for print, online, or whatever, I’d say most don’t know the difference and never even give it a thought. I’ll concede that most people I’ve worked with have been far less fussy about typography than I am (which you’ve no doubt already guessed), but this is the first venue in which the lowest common denominator is almost mandated (and I guess we agree to disagree about the mandate). If use makes something “correct and proper”, your statement is probably correct. It gets back to the question of descriptive vs. prescriptive style (going far beyond typography), and there are proponents of each approach. Merriam-Webster might be an example of the former, and American Heritage an example of the latter.

3. The “special treatment” is as I mentioned in 1 above; with quotes, we pay homage to a character created solely for a device that has hardly seen any use for 20 years, yet we are sticklers for proscribing other characters that device could not properly generate. Quotes are no more difficult to enter or maintain than any other non-ASCII character, yet some here would have us believe that use of typographical quotes would cause the United States east of California to fall into the ocean.

4. You mentioned the lack of paragraph indention as another example of a difference between print and online media (or at least WP. My comment was simply that the difference in paragraph styles has nothing to to with print vs. online media, so it’s a red herring. I still ask the question: what is the substantive difference (if any) between web and print publishing that relates to the issue in this discussion?

5. Supposed advantages, including reducing global warming, have indeed been cited ad nauseam. Much of my objection here has been that so many of the arguments are simply insubstantial. As I’ve tried to make clear, I readily concede some advantages, and suspect you and I agree on most of the substantive ones; we disagree on whether they’re dispositive.

5a. Straight quotes are definitely easier to type. But the same is true for many other typewriter conventions that we disallow, which is why I still have a hard time buying this. Perhaps it is simply that quotes occur more frequently in many articles (which I don’t think anyone has mentioned, though so much has been said that I could have missed it). This isn’t always the case, though; in many technical articles, other special characters occur more frequently (and are far more difficult to get right).

5b. Allowing two types of quotes would create inter-article (and possibly intra-article) inconsistencies. Because of other far more significant inconsistencies, I find the inter-article inconsistency unpersuasive. Intra-article inconsistency would of course violate one of the most basic guidelines of the MoS. It has been suggested that mandated intra-article consistency or not, editors would use straight quotes in articles with curly quotes. I again say this assumes facts not in evidence; I’d burn that bridge if we come to it. That said, I’m sure some editors would do so, just as they do with all manner of other things that other editors must correct if the article is to follow MoS mandates, let alone intra-article consistency.

5c. The presence of two different types of quotes would hinder searches. This may be valid, especially if a single article had two different types of quotes, but I suppose searches for the curly marks could be more difficult for some users. Safari and Chrome for the straight marks find the curly ones as well; Firefox, IE8, and Opera do not. Again, I don’t know if this is a real issue or simply a manufactured argument, but I’ll concede the possibility of the former.

5d. Most of the other proffered advantages for straight quotes are either ILIKEIT or are simply off the wall.

6. This is at least the third time we’ve run through almost the same arguments, and it’s obvious that we agree to disagree. If we at least agree on the points which we disagree, perhaps we could use this as the start of a summary (and place it at the end where readers can find it); obviously, the other side of my rebuttals would need to be included. Perhaps we could make two tables, pro and con, with rebuttals to each, as was done in at least one of the past discussions. In fairness, we might need to include even the arguments we both consider insubstantial.

We have beaten the horse until there’s arguably not enough for a dentist to identify. I don’t think continuing the beating until morale improves is likely to accomplish anything, so I suggest we not do so. Another horse will come along soon enough; I’ll probably let it pass through undisturbed. JeffConrad (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the argument, should it remain unresolved, would be highly desirable, mandatory IMO. However, after a day off, I have a couple of other suggestions to consider:

• The MoS’s General principles should ideally guide us here; given that they do not seem to be able to, would anyone care to propose a change to them such that they can?
• A thought experiment: remove the controversial text from the MoS for a time; what do we think would happen? Might we learn something that would help to guide us?

Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume that proponents of curly quotation marks would begin replacing straight ones throughout their favorite articles. Opponents would revert, triggering prolonged edit wars.

Meanwhile, a vast majority of editors, oblivious to this conflict, would continue typing straight quotation marks (just as they always have and always will). —

David Levy

06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea was to look beyond the immediate and obvious possibilities. For example, edit-wars, should they occur, might be resolved in ways not yet considered here. However, presupposing your answer as ‘not necessarily’, I’d be more interested in your thoughts on the first bullet point: you stated that my interpretation of one of the MoS principles was different to yours; my point is that they should ideally be worded such that they are not open to interpretation. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Follow the sources passage could explicitly indicate that it's intended to apply to people and things mentioned in high-quality articles, not to the general style conventions employed by the publications in which they happen to appear (or the print/online versions thereof). I suspect that "such as the treatment of proper names" was intended to imply this, but it could be spelled out more clearly.

Regarding general style conventions, we could note that all high-quality sources can be considered (irrespective of the extent to which we've cited their articles as factual sources), with attention paid to the publications' similarities to and dissimilarities from Wikipedia when determining individual style conventions' applicability thereto.

But I see a more pressing need to revise/expand the Internal consistency passage to indicate that inter-article consistency generally is desirable (though not necessarily mandatory) where no English variety issues exist. I suggest that the subheading be renamed Consistency (preferred) or a separate passage be split off. —

David Levy

16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t all that crazy. I assure you that I would not go changing quotes, because there simply are too many far more important things to do. I’m pretty scrupulous about honoring existing style unless something is clearly wrong with it; I do this more from common sense and common courtesy than for compliance with the MoS. If a change were made (and based on this discussion, none of the proposals would fly as written), there should be a requirement to honor the existing style unless there is none or if significant numbers of quotes are added to an article with only a couple (which in a sense says there is arguably no existing style. Disruption, for its own sake or otherwise, was the last thing I had in mind when I had the poor judgment to reopen this discussion. I and several others had suggested that changing to curly quotes should not be objectionable, but such a policy is clearly untenable at present. If it were found that people really didn’t dislike curly quotes, the issue could be revisited (as it surely will be anyway . . .). JeffConrad (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of extending your numbering (thereby enabling me to address the individual points without repeating what you wrote). If you object, feel free to revert. —

David Levy

06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I now realize why you did it; here losing the paragraph indention causes no harm, so it’s no issue. I’d still prefer in the future that formatting be left intact; I deal with the numbering by looking at a preview or by viewing the current version in a new tab or new window. I concede this doesn’t help with unordered lists. JeffConrad (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The logic behind this "schizoid" approach has been thoroughly explained (and of course, you're welcome to disagree with it). Please see point 4c in my above 16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) response to you.

2. Okay, you appear to have misunderstood what we mean by "correct and proper." We aren't suggesting that one style is correct and proper and the other is incorrect and improper. The point is that both "this" and “this” are legitimate, widely accepted English-language constructs.

3. See 1.

4. I still don't understand your counterpoint regarding paragraph indentation.

The substantive difference is that straight quotation marks are common (and therefore no source of shame or embarrassment) in online media.

5. Likewise, I regard the purported advantages of Wikipedia using curly quotation marks as insubstantial. As I've noted, the discussion's participants (including you and me) are highly biased and unqualified to formally gauge consensus (or the lack thereof).

5a. "That quotes occur more frequently in many articles" was mentioned in a reply to you, written by JohnBlackburne, 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC). This is one distinction of several. (See 1.)

5b. See 1.

5c. I lack first-hand knowledge of the issue on which this argument is based.

5d. In my opinion, "ILIKEIT" (or perhaps "TRADITIONALMEDIALIKEIT") describes the main argument in favor of curly quotation marks.

6. I don't object to such an attempt. —

David Levy

06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1, 3. I can’t find a 4c above that seems to address this; can you give me a text string that will find it?

2. No dispute on “widely used”; any judgmental term is a matter of opinion. Incidentally, I’ve never said that straight quotes were incorrect, though by reference to numerous style guides, I’ve probably implied it.

4. I’ve simply said that indention or lack thereof has nothing to do with a purported difference between print and online media; it’s a personal preference in either one.

5a. It looks as if he did, if one includes apostrophes (which probably is reasonable). Though I don’t agree with all of his assertions, I agree that the apostrophe probably occurs more commonly in most articles than most other non-ASCII characters. Though I agree that a conversion program (were one needed) that would correctly handle nested quotations and apostrophes would be nontrivial, I doubt that it would be as difficult as suggested.

5b. I don’t see how this relates to 1, but it might be more obvious if I could find the 4c you cite.

5c. A search for Alzheimer's in an article that had it as Alzheimer’s using a browser other than Safari or Chrome could fail. I’m not sure this is a real issue, but concede the possibility.

Assuming that the competing browsers fall in line in this respect, which behaviour will prevail I wonder, the smart search or the dumb search? Also, note that merely typing ‘a’, ‘l’, ‘z’ in a modern browser is sufficient to find Alzheimer’s on this page.

5d. Preference is of course one element, but so is readability. As I mentioned, the examples I gave above are so short that the differences are less obvious than they might be if they extended for several paragraphs, and again, the differences are less obvious in Arial than some other typefaces, especially any serif face. But basing a decision solely on the Arial face (which I assume is the default for most users) is like the program that tracks exactly seventeen salesmen.

The readability issue is not simply something I invented; “traditional” media and type designers aren’t blockheads, so their preference is likely more than capricious. Much has been studied on the consistency of patterns in type, with everything I’ve read finding that disruptions in the patterns impede the process. It’s much the same as with the most readable line measure and leading; some have been found to work better than others (yeah, I know we deviate from traditional practice in much online publishing—and it shows). I no longer have access to the half-dozen or so books on typography that I’ve read, and I haven’t reviewed the topic in 20 years, so I can’t say whether thinking has changed. For example, at one time, it was thought that the lack of serifs to guide the eye made sans-serif running text, and many guides accordingly recommended reserving it for short passages such as titles and headings. I still share that opinion, but I don’t know if the folks who study such things still hold that view. Here is perhaps one difference between print and electronic media (“online” is irrelevant): on a low-resolution screen, such as a “smart” phone, a sans-serif face often displays better because it is simpler. Aside from that, however, I just don’t see the asserted distinction between “traditional” and “online” (or whatever) media; in particular, except for pagination, why should the appearance of material in rendered HTML be different from material in a PDF document when they’re both viewed on the same display? JeffConrad (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1, 3. Here's a text string: From a practical standpoint, another material difference

4. I disagree. Paragraph indentation is widely regarded as a standard style convention in the relevant types of print media and typically (though not always) omitted from the equivalent online publications. This deviation likely stemmed from technical limitations, but the end result is a new style convention.

5b. Indeed, it relates to my previous explanation of why the resultant workload would far exceed the current one.

5d. As you allude to above, much has been written on the differences between text printed on paper and text appearing on computer screens (i.e. that unlike paper, sans-serif typefaces generally are more legible on computer screens).

I don't know whether anyone has formally studied the use of quotation marks in electronic media, but it seems entirely possible that the same principle applies. I certainly don't assert that it does, but I regard it as unreasonable to assume the contrary.

I will note that the straight quotation marks appear clearer on both my laptop computer's screen (running Mozilla Firefox with the default text settings) and my smartphone's screen (running the stock Android browser). Unfortunately, I have no interlaced display with which to perform a comparison.

I know with absolute certainty that straight quotation have been widely adopted online, including by highly reputable publications utilizing curly quotation marks in print for many years. To me, this suggests the absence of a problem. —

David Levy

16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We are directed to follow the article sources, most of which are printed and use typographic quotes. If (for some reason that seems to fall outside the MoS guidelines) we feel the need to look at on-line publishers then we should look at those with similar content, e.g. Britannica (which uses typographic quotes). Bear in mind that Wikipedia users may want to print articles or incorporate them in other printed material. News sites, on the other hand, largely have “disposable” content—they are not a good model for Wikipedia. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether we cite more print sources than online sources, but that's irrelevant. The principle to which you refer is intended to apply to the things about which we write (e.g. the spelling and capitalization used for someone or something's name), not the general typographical styles that happen to be employed by these publications. (Otherwise, shouldn't we indent our articles' paragraphs?) Such broader analysis is reasonable, but only when examining the most similar high-quality sources available (i.e. other websites).

Britannica is similar to Wikipedia in the respect that it's an encyclopedia. Other websites are similar in different respects. Still other elements are shared only with other wikis.

In my opinion, a more relevant criterion than "disposable vs. non-disposable" is "static vs. dynamic." Practices compatible with a "typeset-it-and-forget-it" medium don't necessarily work as well here. —

David Levy

19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure why the proposals that we have had so far have been so tentative—merely allowing typographic quotation characters instead of just categorizing them, with em-dash etc., as preferred. A ‘half-way house’ proposal (e.g. per Eng. var.) requires more management which in this case is unnecessary: unlike Eng. var., use of typewriter characters was the result of a limitation, not a preference, and, as demonstrated by the successful use of other typographic characters in Wikipedia, that limitation no longer exists. Jeff stated above “we have a problem”; indeed, this facet of the current MoS has just burnt 100k+ of discussion—maintaining the status quo is not an option. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because both forms of quotation marks are correct and proper. "--" is not a real em dash but " is a real quotation mark. Banning straight quotes would be just as bad as banning curly ones. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not according to that rather nice encyclopaedia Wikipedia: " is a

double prime mark; it “should not be confused with the double quotation mark” and its use as such is a typewriter convention. — Wrapped in Grey (talk

) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so. The double prime mark is ″ (U+2033 DOUBLE PRIME = seconds, inches); " is U+0022 QUOTATION MARK. The Unicode standard says of the latter: ‘neutral (vertical), used as opening or closing quotation mark’; ‘preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK & U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK’. A. di M. (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I hoped was clear, I was sourcing information from WP articles including the one on Typewriter conventions; typewriters know nothing of U+xxxx. Here’s a direct quotation: “typewriter practices ... include ... the use of prime marks (or "dumb quotes") as quotation marks”. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Even without knowing anything about U+xxxx, the ambidexterous quotation marks found on typewriters AFAICT are nearly always vertical, whereas the prime signs used in all typeset mathematical texts I recall ever seeing are always slanted. (I think they originated as italicized sans-serif Roman numerals, as some people, when hand-writing, after f′, f′′ and f′′′ will go on with f^IV and f^V.) A. di M. (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is my experience too, so maybe the Typewriter article should be updated with a better description of the " character; however, the point being made—that " is not “a real quotation mark”—still stands (the citation referenced in the typewriter article in fact refers to them as “dumb” quotes and describes their use as a “crime”).

The straight double quote (U+0022) is unquestionably in common use; whether it’s “correct and proper” is a matter of opinion, though I suppose if enough people use it, it’s tough to consider it “incorrect” or “improper”. The double prime mark throws even many typographers, but it’s exactly as A. di M. states. If you want to get it right, it’s important to keep these characters straight. Most folks don’t; it would really be nice if the character links below the edit box included the character names in the titles (“tooltips”). It’s easy to confuse a double prime with a straight double quote (He said, "1° 2′ 3″ "; cf. He said, “1° 2′ 3″ ”) which is perhaps an argument not to use both in the same article; ditto for single prime (U+2032) and straight single quote (U+0027). Incidentally, for another example of a quality source (arguably, a very high quality source) that uses typographical quotes for online material, see The Chicago Manual of Style Online. Who’d have thought? JeffConrad (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1. While I've expressed a clear preference for the use of straight quotation marks, I agree that a complete changeover to curly ones would be preferable to the needless inconsistency proposed. Let's not transform every article into a quotation mark battleground.

2. Why is maintaining the status quo not an option? —

David Levy

16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because this thread is now 130k bytes long, still with no conclusion and we do want a repeat performance. The justification in the current MoS is disputed (reliability of entry of these non-ASCII characters opposed to other, preferred non-ASCII characters); the intention of the current MoS is unclear (recommended does not mean obligatory). If nothing else, these aspects of the MoS need to be improved.

BTW, here’s an even easier way to enter the commonly-used non-ASCIIs (on an English keyboard). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I certainly don't oppose clarifying the MoS entry (irrespective of the style determinations made). —

David Levy

19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: There are three options:

1. To require all articles to use curly quotation marks. There is plainly no consensus for that; many of the objections above are to that option; I would strongly oppose it myself - and I don't see very much support for it.
2. To require straight quotation marks for all articles. I think the persistence and recurrence of this thread demonstrates that this is not consensus.
3. To require neither. Both of the above require non-consensus writing in the guideline; this doesn't. David Levy's position seems to me contrary to the first section of this page: we require consistency within an article, not necessarily across Wikipedia. Since we cannot agree on consistency across Wikipedia, we must fall back on consistency within an article.

Accordingly, I have edited minimally, removing exclusivity (on the grounds that it does not reflect consensus) and requiring consistency within articles. The arguments for straight quotes are still there; somebody who wants curly ones should feel free to respond. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, "consensus" means more than "agreement among persons discussing something." Among editors of this wiki (few of whom will ever see this page), straight quotation marks overwhelmingly predominate.

We don't necessarily require consistency across Wikipedia, but we prefer it when there are no English variety issues and a particular method is widely favored. —

David Levy

19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But that rules out consensus on position #1 above; what is your evidence that there is consensus to prohibit curly quotes, which is what position #2 says? I don't believe most editors care. Without such evidence, edits like this which impose such a prohibition are "edits which do not reflect consensus" - and we should strongly consider dispute resolution about such edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I stand by my position: these pages could be useful, but as they stand, they are a waste of time, and marginally harmful to the encyclopedia. There is

policy about rules like that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I believe that the arguments against the use of curly quotation marks are far stronger than those for their use.

However, I'm hopelessly biased. Involved editors (including you and me) shouldn't formally evaluate consensus.

2. You believe that the MoS (and this entry in particular) wastes time? That's how I feel about an unnecessary style introduction that virtually guarantees an increased cleanup need for the remainder of the affected articles' existence. —

David Levy

20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You've claimed this "increased cleanup cost" several times. You've never explained what it might be. What we have now is a clean-up cost hunting down all the EEEvil curly quotes and getting rid of them - and an explanation cost justifying this to everybody who likes them. Removing "exclusively" would remove all this cost. What cost would replace it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've elaborated several times. Most of our editors, including those unfamiliar with the MoS, use straight quotation marks (and will continue to do so, no matter what). A page written with curly quotation marks is likely to frequently receive straight quotation marks (to the extent that an advocate of curly quotation marks has proposed routine monitoring by "shepherding editors").

No matter what style[s] we select, some cleanup of inconsistent usage within articles is unavoidable. But the allowance of curly quotation marks (either exclusively or optionally) can only cause the need to soar. —

David Levy

20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

“Shepherding editors” already exist; they clean-up all sorts of MoS, grammar, and other problems left by less-experienced editors. Cleaning-up w.r.t. to this single aspect of the MoS is of little significance in that realm. On the point made about (not) paragraph indenting, the information that is currently entered as article text is sufficient to allow paragraphs to be formatted either way (indented or as currently, with leading). It would be possible to allow selection between the two styles as a user preference. Similarly, display of quotation characters as typographic or typewriter could be made a user preference but probably only if the former were entered in the article text. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to belittle editors who take the time to monitor articles and address problems that arise. Greg L, in his use of the terms "shepherding authors" and "shepherding editors," has proposed a

somewhat different concept

in which what constitutes appropriate behavior on the part of general editors depends upon whether a "shepherding author/editor" has staked a claim on a particular article (which others would be left to somehow divine, unless "This article's content is controlled by User:_____" tags were to be placed on talk pages).

Regarding paragraph indentation, I was referring to our default layout (which a vast, vast majority of visitors will see). If our goal were to emulate print media, we surely would indent paragraphs (possibly excepting the first, depending on the style used) by default.

I think that the user script idea is an excellent one, and while rendering straight quotation marks as curly ones would require fancier code, I don't see why it shouldn't be feasible. —

David Levy

00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How the hell would such “fancier code” tell whether the ' in 'cause is an apostrophe (in which case it should be rendered as ’cause) or an opening quotation mark (in which case it should be ‘cause? A. di M. (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By "fancier," I meant "capable of analyzing context instead of blindly converting x to y when encountered." I had in mind a need to detect a mark's location (to determine whether it opens or closes a quotation). The issue that you've cited is much trickier, I'd imagine. But I'm not a programmer, so please take these largely off-topic comments with a grain of salt. —

David Levy

15:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Some more thoughts: the choice of a handful of sites to use curly quotes is not a random choice but one that ties into an overall, very coherent design that includes choice of (serif) font, use of colour, text sizes, and many other choices. WP simply cannot do that as through user preferences and customised stylesheets users can specify most of these things. I.e. the fact that the NYT uses curly quotes and it makes sense for them does not mean it makes sense here.

We are nothing like print: there are so many things you see in print you don't see here, like paragraph indentation, pages and page numbers (which you also see on some sites), and many things you see here you don't see in print. And there is no single standard for print: just pick up three newspapers in this country, the Guardian, Telegraph and Sun say, and compare them.

In theory there could be a user preference, as there is on the Chinese WP for Simplified or Traditional characters, but it would be a massive amount of work, modifying every article by hand, and rewriting the software to handle it, so much so it will never happen.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop performing contested edits to an MoS entry that's currently the subject of a discussion in which you're involved. I wish to modify it too, but let's try to resolve the dispute, perhaps with the assistance of uninvolved parties. —

David Levy

19:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed for weeks. There is no consensus for the present wording. Restoring it is editing which does not reflect consensus. If this section is still here in the new year, I will consider what dispute resolution is adequate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how why you think there is consensus against the current version. In the discussions on the various alternatives suggested the consensus, simply going by the number of oppose statements, is clearly against any change. There are few of these in this last sub-section, perhaps as editors having expressed their view once do not feel the need to restate their opinions on essentially the same issue. Nor is this some irrational prejudice by editors: the main reasons are in fact given in the article, though we have come up with some more in this discussion such as it breaking links because of a mismatch in styles between two articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What I said is that there is no consensus for the present text - repeatedly. There are three states: consensus for something, consensus against something, and no consensus either way; policies and guidelines should require the first - and anything which does not is an essay. There is no consensus for any prohibition.

Statements against a requirement of curly quotes (like most of the opposes here) affect whether there is consensus for #1 above, the prohibition of straight quotes - which there isn't; they cannot affect whether there is consensus for anything else, unless they express an opinion on something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you regard yourself as uniquely qualified to gauge consensus (or lack thereof) in a discussion of which you're an active participant? —

David Levy

20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus, or at least whenever anyone has put a change to a poll it has been convincingly opposed. That is consensus for the current version, unless I am seriously misjudging the intent of the participating editors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, involved parties (including you and me) shouldn't attempt to evaluate consensus in a binding manner. —

David Levy

20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing exactly what you and John Blackburne are doing (you two are very involved parties and revert-warring to bind the text to your preferred version). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the summary, my one edit served only to restore the discussion pointer that you added (removed by John via his second reversion). —

David Levy

01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please address this. If you made a mistake, that's fine, but I want to resolve any confusion. —

David Levy

02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

But on the merits: Let us review the bidding. Several editors began this by opposing the exact position that straight quotes should be required; none of them have changed their mind. Your precise position, that we ought to require straight quotes, and that sources are irrelevant, seems to be upheld solely by the two of you. This is consensus? Let's have specifics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Come again? What is the significance of the editors not changing their minds? Who said that sources are irrelevant? And what gives you the idea that John and I are alone in our opinions? I read the above several times, and I honestly don't know what you're asking me to defend. —

David Levy

01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Start with the proposition that even a majority of those discussing this support exclusive use of straight quotes; we can get to what supermajority would be consensus in the presence of active dissent later. As far as I can tell, nobody but you two and perhaps Headbomb has actually endorsed that position; several editors have weighed in opposing exclusive use of curly quotes which nobody suggested (until you claimed it as your second choice), but that's a different question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, when did I cite the claim that "a majority of those discussing this support exclusive use of straight quotes"? I've explicitly stated that "'consensus' means more than 'agreement among persons discussing something'" and noted that I regard the relative strength of the opponents' arguments (in my highly biased assessment) as a key factor.

David Levy

02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not claim majority, then either you claim

• A minority is consensus,or
• You do not have consensus.

The first is novel policy, the second concedes that the minority language should not stand. (It should not be replaced by other minority language, it should simply be removed.) Whether you have even a majority follows; it is necessary but not sufficient. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I haven't cited such a claim. A simple vote count yields a sizable majority opposed to the proposals, but that isn't how consensus is gauged. Numbers aren't irrelevant, but it's the arguments' strength that matters most. I've opined that the opponents' arguments are significantly stronger overall (while simultaneously noting that I, like you, am hopelessly biased and unfit to formally gauge consensus). —

David Levy

04:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, from what do you derive the idea that all opponents apart from John, Headbomb and me have strictly opposed "exclusive use of curly quotes"? Edokter, 86.173.169.220, Cybercobra, Woodstone, Adabow, Mclay1, Arthur Rubin, SlimVirgin, David Fuchs, Johnuniq, Jc3s5h, SarekOfVulcan, Oknazevad and Trovatore appear to oppose any use of curly quotation marks (possibly apart from special exceptions) in the encyclopedia. Some cited a desire to maintain intra-article consistency and concern that the acceptance of two styles would trigger edit wars. —

David Levy

02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, I vehemently oppose any and all use of curly quotes, except when mandated by context (like when discussing curly quotes themslves).

books

} 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. Edokter's reply is here; it is a vivid and clear argument that he doesn't want to use curly quotes (and I don't think he should have to). It says nothing about the point at issue: that other editors should be compelled not to; most of this list of "supporters" is equally fantastic. Is Mediation acceptable to you? This is beyond the reach of reason. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm utterly baffled by your interpretation of Edokter's comments. Edokter cited legibility issues, "breaking Wiki markup and search" and "break[ing] links to article titles and section headings with quotation marks." How do you interpret these concerns as applicable strictly to Edokter's editing habits?

2. I'm 100% open to mediation, if you believe that it would help. But I honestly don't understand why you've taken such a confrontational, accusatory approach (from my perspective, at least). I'm sincerely attempting to participate in civil, constructive discourse, but you seem to perceive my actions as outrageous and offensive. Even my reinsertion of your discussion pointer has been inexplicably labeled "revert-warring to bind the text to [my] preferred version." Are you having a bad day? —

David Levy

04:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the cited references are printed, but let’s face it—they aren’t likely to give the books away by putting them on the web. I keep seeing “we’re not like print”, but I’ve not been shown why this is a convincing argument against typographical quotes. I also see it mentioned that the examples with typographical quotes are on pages with serif type; since I said this myself at least a half dozen times before anyone else mentioned it, I find it unsurprising. Is the intent somehow to say that while typographical quotes are inappropriate for sans-serif type? If so, why? Or is it simply that the differences are harder to see with sans-serif type (especially the Arial that is the default for many users)? If so, what is the problem? Typographical quotes would display properly for those who specified serif font, and would look essentially the same as straight ones for the majority of people who don’t.

I don’t buy the example of the lack of paragraph indention as supporting anything; what in the world has that got to do with this? Not all printed sources indent paragraphs, and many web pages do. One of the worst things to happen to the web was the commingling of content and presentation, which ultimately led to the development of CSS. In fact, the HTML 4.01 strict DTD disallows most presentational elements and many purely presentational attributes. In addition to eliminating a lot of messy code, this development recognizes that material may be repurposed and that the presentation may change, and such a change is easily managed when content and presentation are kept separate. When the content is viewed only through the lens of a particular presentation, and entered accordingly, the change may be more difficult. With straight quotes, a change as simple one to a serif typeface (which some users do) makes for ugly presentation. Though we’re far from agreement on anything that would preclude such a problem, proscribing something that would partially avoid it doesn’t make much sense.

For reasons I cannot comprehend, there is some obsession with quotes, the likes of which I’ve never encountered elsewhere. As several of us have said repeatedly, were we to treat all non-ASCII characters (some of which have no keyboard shortcuts) the same as we do quotes, I might find some of the arguments somewhat more convincing. But we don’t and I don’t. I shall repeat yet again: though we have cited many well-regarded style guides that show only typographical quotes, or in some cases specifically urge against straight quotes, I have yet to see one that urges against typographical quotes. In fact, every style guide that I have, save one (CMoS 16, which deprecates the use of straight quotes as “unsophisticated”) treats straight quotes as if they did not exist.

David, you said, “the circumstances under which a wiki is written justify the use of straight quotation marks”, suggesting that a wiki is somehow different from other media. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this; is it that typographical quotes are to difficult to enter? Or is it something else?

I am perhaps more sympathetic to David Levy’s concern about subsequent editors inserting straight quotes into articles with typographical quotes. While I think this assumes facts not in evidence, it’s probably not an unreasonable concern. But new editors make edits all the time that conflict with articles, typographically, stylistically, in use of terminology, and especially in the style, formatting, and quality of references, yet we don’t seem to bat an eyelash. I simply cannot understand this; compared to most other inconsistencies I encounter, keeping quotation marks consistent is a trivial undertaking. Perhaps it depends on the type of article: for one with many quotations and that changes frequently, maintenance would require more effort, but for an article with few quotes or that was fairly stable, little would be required. As I mentioned, editors need to fix other inconsistencies introduced by new editors all the time. A trivial example: many times I have had to insert nonbreaking spaces between values and units, only to have the same editors almost immediately make the same mistake in another edit. Less trivial to clean up are edits that ignore the prevailing reference style; in some cases, cleanup is a nightmare, especially if the changes have been made at various points in the article. Though either action clearly violates MoS, we don’t chastise such editors and seem to take less vitriolic objection.

I don’t sense much consensus of any kind, much as stated in the register for the MoS. Conceptually, I completely agree with A. di M.’s reminder that “Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority”, but would have no idea how to apply here. Those of us who support some sort of change find most of the arguments against it insubstantial, and would not be surprised if those who oppose feel likewise. We continue to rehash the same arguments, seemingly to no end. I wonder if it would be worth at least attempting to summarize the points on which we apparently agree to disagree. JeffConrad (talk)

I sincerely appreciate your effort to understand everyone's views, Jeff, but most of the points/questions that you've raised already have been addressed/answered. In particular, I've cited material differences between Wikipedia and print media, expounded on the "paragraph indentation" example, compared the resultant inter-article inconsistency problem to that which currently exists, and explicitly clarified what I meant by "the circumstances under which a wiki is written justify the use of straight quotation marks." (Please search the page for that text.) —

David Levy

04:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

With your latest replies, I agree that most of the points have been answered. Whether they have been addressed is another matter, but it of course depends on what is meant by “addressed”. I still await any substantive response to why quotes should be treated differently from many other non-ASCII characters with regard to ease of entry, displayability, or article readability. But perhaps that is just another point on which the two camps agree to disagree. I think think it would be worth trying to see if we could at least agree on the points on which we agree to disagree. So much has been said that I’m not even sure I remember everything that I’ve said. JeffConrad (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've explained my (and others') perceived distinctions between quotation marks and non-ASCII characters (such as dashes) in great detail. I personally make no claims regarding differences in displayability or article readability (though others disagree). And yes, I've also explicitly agreed to disagree on these points.  :) —

David Levy

12:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes are different from non-ASCII characters for two main reasons. First with e.g. dashes to use a hyphen in place of an n-dash or minus is simply wrong. That means it's simple to devise a policy for dashes – use the right ones – and changes made to fix problems with quotes are uncontroversial, so they can even be done by bots. Conversely there is nothing wrong with straight quotes or curly quotes, they are just different stylistic choices. Second quotes are far more common, appearing in almost every paragraph, not just around quotations but used for emphasis, for contraction and to indicate possessives. These two differences mean changing the policy will involve much more work, because of the number of paragraphs affected and the relative complexity of the issue, so they are substantially different from other non-ASCII characters in this regard.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

make default

How about if we just make something so the default is curly? I'm not even joking. I bet more than 50% of the time, when you're using quote marks, you're using them for a quote. So just have them display as quotes. It's just some code, right? Then put the fancy toolbard button on there for when you want to keep the straight ones. P.s. I confess to only reading about a 1/4 of the discussion. Not a troll, honest.TCO (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you want the default to be “ or ” ? They look the same on my preview, but I copied a left curly and a right curly from

7" records, or by extra quote marks left by accident (usually in a citation template). The opposite would presumably be easier: change software so curly quotes appear as straight. Art LaPella (talk

) 02:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I donno the details but MS Word seems to have figured this out for at least 10 years and logistically it is not that tricky. Sure you will still have an occasional glitch, but so what. a lot of the manual stuff glitches all the time, too. TCO (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For the last 10 years MS Word has turned 'cause into ‘cause regardless of whether it’s the beginning of a quotation or a contraction for because, in which latter case ’cause would be correct. It has also turned 2" into 2” regardless of whether it’s the end of a quotation or a measurement in inches or arcseconds, in which latter case 2″ would be correct. A. di M. (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be possible to have a “smart” quote feature that did the conversion on the first preview, but care would need to be taken to avoid problems like Art mentioned, and care would need to be taken not to alter quotes in markup. Conceivably, the feature could be optional, or could be run manually via a button on the editor toolbar by editors who prefer to use typographical quotes; I think we’d need a much better hit rate than 67%, though. I’m surprised the rate Art mentions is so low; I’ve written scripts that added markup to ASCII files, and probably had about a 95% success rate. Of course, I did not need to deal with markup, so perhaps I would have had a lower success rate with marked-up WP source. It’s not difficult to prevent one misplaced quote from messing everything up, but it’s also tough to catch everything, such as Art’s example with the “inch marks”. As Art mentions, the reverse process is easy. JeffConrad (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Close RfC

At this point all that happens is people writing essays about what people really meant and their personal bewilderment that essays are being written about what people really meant. The ship has sailed, let's close this RfC. Consensus is pretty clear against the use of curly quotes.

Original poll (Oppose to support 8:4)

For

• A. di M.
• Wrapped in Gray
• JeffConrad
• Darkfrog

Oppose

• Edokter
• JohnBlackburne
• IP
• Headbomb
• CybraCobra
• Artur Rubin
• SlimVirgin
• David Levy

The Arguments for are "Since we allow endashes, why not curly quotes? I like curly quotes. They are typographically superior and do no harm.". The argument against are "We have consistency now, this will break it, and will bring countless edit wars, and make articles hell to maintain. Straight quotes are a proper quotation mark, thus the parallel with double hyphens (which is improper) and emdashes do not apply. The typographical edge they have over straight quote is established offline, but not online. I hate curly quotes."

The following polls and subpolls are basically reformulation of the same things in the hopes of changing things, but which failed to do any better than the original, and debate on technical/software things. While I'm in the oppose camp myself, I don't think I'm in the wrong when I'm saying that the opposition for this is pretty intense, much more so that for their support, and that none of pro-"curly quotes" arguments even addressed any of the oppose's concerns. When taken the ILIKEITE/IDONTLIKE IT arguments from the pot, their remains very little of them for the "pro" side, and lots of them for the "anti" side. So please let's close this down, consensus is pretty clear that curly quotes do not have consensus for use on Wikipedia, and that allowing them is not a good idea. Let's not escalate this to 20 archives or debate on this like we do with the IEC prefixes, or have bans and blocks resulting from ARBCOM cases like with the date delinking fiasco.

} 07:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with your summary, especially the comments that the “pro” arguments are essentially empty, and that the concerns of those in opposition have been addressed. I agree that with 2–1 against, there certainly is little support for any of the changes specifically proposed. That said, there have been (and still are) many who think the current wording does not reflect consensus, as the register for the project page states. So perhaps the RfC has run its course, but I’d like to see the summary better reflect the points of contention. JeffConrad (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that we probably should mention your earlier comment about citation templates. I don’t use them except under duress, but many editors do, and as presently coded, they would not work well with typographical quotes. Like so many other things, I don’t think it’s dispositive, but unlike some of the other arguments, it is a valid issue. I would even agree that it really has not been addressed. JeffConrad (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the register should be amended to take into account recent developments.

books

} 12:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with the summary and the disregard of WP policy: Consensus is determined not by a simple counted majority. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had bothered reading my post, you'd have seen that it was not a "simple head count".

books

} 12:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

“polls should always be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting” — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not a "simple head count", it was a quite creative head count. Where is my name, for instance?—Emil J. 15:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some arguments are missing, as well as names. For example, the fact that most reliable sources including on-line ones such as The Times, The New York Times and Britannica use them. This doesn't look like “consensus against” to me, it looks like “no consensus”. (Now, what happens in this case? “The status quo stays” or “the MOS should be silent”? We should sort that out once and for all.) A. di M. (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I noted earlier most sources don't, or at least there are far more that don't than those three. But even if many more sources using curly quotes could be found I don't see how that is an argument for using them here. We do not know the cost to them of doing this (which I suspect is considerable for a daily newspaper), and there are many things we do which are different from the NYT, Times, etc.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I noted that professional sources (both print and online) publish completed texts, which are standardized via editorial hierarchies. We lack such a process, and our articles are never finalized. —

David Levy

16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, are you suggesting that most reliable online sources use curly quotation marks? —

David Levy

16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

David, I can’t speak for A. di M., but I think most of us readily concede that that most web pages use straight quotes (as well as marginal typography in general). I’m not sure the lowest common denominator is the best guide, however. We’ve noted some quality sources that do care about typography, CMoS being one good example. They’re only one site, but they’re heavy hitters. JeffConrad (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Lowest common denominator" is loaded language. One could just as easily refer to websites using curly quotation marks as "pretentious," but I prefer to focus on substantive issues.

(To be clear, I'm not actually asserting that websites using curly quotation marks are pretentious.) —

David Levy

23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "most web pages" (many of which only use straight quotes because the author didn't know the difference at all), it's an issue of "most reliable sources". Of course you won't find many curly quotes in Facebook walls, but we don't want to use it's as its or b4 as before because they're so common out there. A. di M. (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

David Levy

03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The MoS directs us to “high-quality sources”, not “high-quality online sources”; if you wish to base arguments on the latter then you must first change, through consensus, the MoS accordingly. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you're responding out of context. The above exchange can be summarized as follows:

• A. di M apparently claims that most reliable online sources use curly quotation marks.
• JohnBlackburne replies that this is incorrect and I inquire as to whether it was A. di M's intended statement.
• JeffConrad acknowledges that "most web pages" (written without qualification) use straight quotation marks.
• A. di M. reenters the thread with a dismissive reference to "Facebook walls," misleadingly implying that this is the sort of web content that opponents seek to cite.
• I reply to note that we've been discussing "reliable, high-quality online sources" (which is true regardless of whether other high-quality sources should be considered in this context), so "Facebook walls" are irrelevant.

Secondly, you're disregarding previous discussion (pertaining to a principle's [in]applicability to this situation), to which you haven't replied. I'm quite disappointed, as you appeared to express genuine interest in my interpretation (upon which I elaborated at your request). —

David Levy

09:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Among reliable online sources, only Britannica, The New York Times, and possibly The Times use curly quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for such a sweeping statement? (And does that mean that this is not a reliable source?) A. di M. (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

John, I have no idea about the cost, but quite honestly, it’s not a question I’d even think to ask, because it’s something I’ve done for 25 years and I never even think about it—I just do it. It’s slightly more effort, but it just isn’t the Herculean task that many seem to envision. I use Windoze, so from the keyboard, it’s Alt + four keystrokes. For other web pages, I use the HTML entities; for sure, it’s a bit more work than typing a typewriter quote, but at least I don’t have bad typography to detract from I’ve written. I’ll concede that many people probably don’t even notice. JeffConrad (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, you aren't considering the cost. It comes naturally to you, so it's difficult for you to see what all of the fuss is about. But most Wikipedia editors don't even know how to type curly quotation marks, let alone possess the inclination to do so.

Your belief that straight quotation marks constitute "bad typography" is one that few people hold in this context. —

David Levy

23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The cost for a newspaper is the dedicated staff of copy-editors whose role is to turn raw copy into newspaper-ready content. Part of their job will be to enforce the house style, so making straight quotes curly or vice-versa as needed. WP will not need such staff (we don't have a schedule like a newspaper when the work must be done by) but the work will be done by someone at some point. It will be potentially be more work as a newspaper, which knows in advance what its style is, can enforce it on at least office based writers by putting MS Word on all machines set to use the correct style (of quotes and everything else), but we have no way of doing this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

David, I’ve been using typographical quotation marks for a long time, so I suppose now it’s now almost habit, but wouldn’t say that it “came naturally”—I had to train myself to do it. Quite honestly, until this discussion began, I had never used the keyboard shortcuts for WP; I had always worried that the values entered would be

Code page 1252

rather than Unicode, but the actual characters seem indeed to be Unicode. I never knew the shortcuts for quotes because MS Word takes care of them automatically; I tried them a few times here and they seem to work fine (for other than apostrophe, I find the character links faster). I will concede that I sometimes tend to assume that because I have no problem doing something that no one else should have a problem doing likewise, and perhaps this isn’t always reasonable. But I also think it’s sometimes more work to discuss why something can’t be done than to simply do it.

As regards “bad typography”, I guess it depends on which people and what is meant by “this context” (WP or web publishing in general). I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source that addressed the issue that held otherwise (most guides ignore the issue). So I’ll stand by my citation of CMoS 6.112. Now the importance of good typography is arguably debatable. “LCD” was a bit tongue in cheek, but only partially. Typography becomes pretentious when used as Mrs. Malaprop might employ it. For crying out loud: typographical quotes are essentially inverted commas—should they not match? JeffConrad (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1. No one has claimed that the proposed actions "can't be done." We've cited reasons why we believe that they would do more harm than good.

2. By "this context," I meant web publishing in general. I've addressed the matter of style guides elsewhere in this discussion. —

David Levy

03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment addressed effort, not harm, and was in response to suggested great difficulties, and simply said that the difficulties are as much imagined as real. I suppose I should have concluded with, “it’s sometimes more work to discuss why something is so difficult than to simply do it.” JeffConrad (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't merely arguing that the proposed changes would be difficult. —

David Levy

05:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully realize that. However, it would sure make the discussion easier to follow if we kept the various issues separate. We were discussing the difficulty of entering the special characters (which somehow comes naturally to me), and I was simply suggesting that to a large extent, some are making a mountain of a molehill. Of course there could be ramifications of the difficulty of character entry: editors just won’t do it in articles with curly quotes, leading to inconsistencies, massive cleanup efforts, and perhaps a triple-dip recession. I think the discussion stays more productive if we focus on the individual issues (as well as their interrelationships). JeffConrad (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your belief that we've exaggerated the issue.

Some of your messages seem to imply that such character entry is relatively easy to learn. I don't doubt that this is true, but we aren't in a position to teach it to most editors (who will never see the MoS and never even think of doing anything other than typing the straight quotation marks that they've used throughout most of their lives).

You want us to isolate this matter, but it directly relates to others. Quite simply, many of us believe that there is very little to be gained from such changes. So even if one views the aforementioned difficulties as minor, we see insufficient justification. We regard straight quotation marks as appropriate for use in our encyclopedia, see no need to deviate from them and foresee net disadvantages to doing so. —

David Levy

09:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can’t comment on ease of learning for anyone but myself, but I yet again make this observation: it’s no more difficult to learn for quotes than for any other special character. If the “learning is too difficult” theory holds, we’re limited to characters on the the typical QWERTY keyboard, which probably describes the bulk of web content, especially for nonprofessionals. Again, I just don’t see the problem. When someone mentioned the keyboard shortcuts for quotes, I decided to try the one for the apostrophe on Windoze, Alt-0146 (numeric keypad), and lo and behold, I got ’, apparently real Unicode. For practice, I guess I could try it again: ’1’2’3’4’5’6’7’8’9’10 ... five minutes ago, I couldn’t even spel xpurt—now I are one! I don’t mean to make light of this, but I must be missing the difficulty.

The other simple option is to use the character links below the edit box. If it’s not obvious what the characters links do (and I’m not convinced it is), we need to fix that, or the feature is useless. The current implementation of single quote is admittedly awkward, adding only pairs, so that one must be deleted, and a simple backspace won’t do it. A while back, there were links for individual right and left quotes; a link for a single right quote (apostrophe) should be added. The behavior with wikEd is even stranger: attempting to insert a pair of quotes before the s in quotes gives ‘quotes’. But these are minor software glitches that should be addressed anyway.

There also is another simple thing we could do; a user recently asked how to enter a dash, and was given keyboard shortcuts. It was suggested that this be included in the MoS, and there seemed to be no objection to this (I’m not sure the MoS is the right place, but wherever this might be included should be easy for a new editor to find). I suggested that we go even further and include a short table of the most common non-ASCII characters (like this). I haven’t included the Mac keystrokes because I don’t have a Mac, so someone who does would need to do it. Please don’t link to this as a reference because I don’t regard it as stable or permanent. JeffConrad (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I suppose the argument again is that because apostrophes are more frequent than other special characters, we should worry about editors entering them incorrectly and not worry about the other characters. At least to me, a most strange line of reasoning.

I did not suggest that we isolate anything, but simply when we’re talking about difficulty of entry (or whatever) we focus on that, and then move to possible ramifications, perhaps also discussing how one might follow from the other. In other words,

• Issue one.
• Issue two.
• Issue three.

rather than IssueOneIssueThreeIssueTwo.

If most editors will never see the MoS (which may well be the case), then all manner of things that violate MoS will be added to articles. Many of these (e.g., a naked URL for a reference to Joe’s Blog) are far more egregious and more difficult to fix than a quote or two. It also seems that what is urged is essentially prior restraint; perhaps we should act before we’re faced with a mushroom cloud, but I don't see this possibility as quite so imminent as do others. If most editors will never see the MoS, I also assume they could not reasonably be chastised for using curly quotes. No disagreement that many see no benefit of changing, but there also are quite a few who are of the opposite opinion, and accordingly disagree with the summary that has been proposed.

I think it’s obvious that we both are preaching to the unconvertible here, and I think we should just admit that we are not going to agree on some of these things, and that continually beating it to death will do nothing but waste even more time. To many of us, there clearly is no consensus; I’m honestly not what we do with that. JeffConrad (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The material differences between curly quotation marks and other non-ASCII characters have been discussed at great length. You're entitled to disagree, but continually expressing bewilderment (as though no one has even addressed the issue) is extremely frustrating and invites nothing other than pointless reiteration.

2. Again, we are not in a position to teach most users how to enter special characters. Typical editors will never even notice our advice; they'll simply type as they normally do. This means that they'll use straight quotation marks. Those of us who regard straight quotation marks as appropriate see the proposed changes as unnecessary and view any increased burden (referring primarily to the resultant cleanup, not to the education that few editors will ever receive) as unjustified.

And yes, relatively few editors will enter dashes either. But as previously noted, because their approximations vary wildly (e.g. one hyphen, two hyphens, surrounded by spaces, not surrounded by spaces), this is an element that we need to clean up anyway (to maintain intra-article consistency, at the very least). Conversely, almost every Wikipedia editor uses a particular style of quotation marks, so sticking to it means that few instances will require modification.

Indeed, editors shouldn't be chastised for writing in a manner inconsistent with the MoS (which most have never seen). But under the current setup, this rarely occurs in regard to the quotation mark style used (because almost all editors independently use the recommended style). The allowance of curly quotation marks in general prose would cause accidental MoS violations to frequently arise in affected articles (with the introduction of straight quotation marks creating intra-article inconsistency). And this doesn't even touch on the inevitable edit wars between users preferring conflicting styles and wanting

David Levy

11:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit-war Armageddon could easily be addressed by following current general policy: unless the prevailing style of an article is seriously wrong, follow it unless there is consensus to change. Non issue.

As to the other issues, I find your responses every bit as frustrating as you apparently find mine. For the most part, we agree to disagree. Nothing I say is likely to change your mind, and nothing you say is likely to change mine, so we should close this RfC as suggested. The only remaining task is to arrive at a summary that represents a reasonable consensus of where we stand, where we differ, issues that we consider significant, perhaps issues we consider fairly minor, and perhaps whether there is any interest in a revised proposal. JeffConrad (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. No, it is not a non-issue. The principle that you describe often fails to prevent edit wars from occurring. And as you can see, whether there is "consensus" to do something can be disputed.
Additionally, these proposals lack such a stipulation (and the latter two actually encourage "shepherding authors" to replace straight quotation marks with curly ones, at which point the style would instantly become sacrosanct).
And this has no bearing on the use of straight quotation marks (in articles containing curly ones) by editors unaware of the issue.
2. I don't find your replies frustrating because you disagree with me and won't change your mind. The frustrating responses are the ones in which you imply that no one has even addressed a particular issue. It's perfectly reasonable to express disagreement with our arguments, but please don't ignore them.
3. If nothing else, at least we agree on what needs to be done on this page. (-: —

15:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree that the principle doesn’t always prevent edit wars, but if we accept that as controlling, we accept that people will edit war regardless of policy, and we might as well not have the MoS. I have previously suggested that the wording be modified to call for observing the prevailing style absent consensus to change. Again, not a material issue.

2. There is a difference between addressed and having made a response. We obviously disagree on what constitutes “addressed”.

3. I haven’t ignored any arguments; I obviously consider many of them insubstantial at best. JeffConrad (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. It is a material issue. You appear to refer to a hypothetical scenario in which the principle fails to prevent edit wars because it's simply disregarded by users who don't want to follow it. That certainly does occur, so let's address this first.

Your point appears to be that such editors will disregard the MoS (and edit war) anyway. That's true, but almost all of our editors (whether edit warriors or not) use straight quotation marks, so under the current setup, the opportunity to edit war over quotation marks seldom arises. Conversely, if we permit the small minority of users preferring curly quotation marks to create and maintain articles containing them, editors among the vast majority using straight quotation marks (some of whom are edit warriors) will come across these articles and seek to fix them (in addition to those who introduce straight quotation marks without even recognizing the disparity).

But edit wars also stem from causes other than intentional disregard of policies and guidelines. Another likely scenario is one in which someone simply isn't aware of our style conventions. Yes, a lack of familiarity with the MoS is equally likely to exist no matter what conventions we adopt, but again, almost all of our editors independently use straight quotation marks (so their lack of familiarity with the MoS will become a relevant issue only if we start expecting them to use curly ones).

Still another scenario is one in which there is disagreement regarding which style was used in the article's first non-stub revision. What constitutes a "stub" (and precisely when a small article ceases to be one) is debatable, and it's possible for an article's style to be inconsistent when the threshold is crossed. But the "non-stub" criterion is important, as the principle otherwise would encourage users to create essentially empty pages as a means of "squatting" on future articles (i.e. locking in their preferred English varieties and other style elements).

Yet another scenario is one in which two or more articles with differing styles are merged. What then? Should the oldest article's style prevail? How about the longest article's style? Perhaps we should go by whichever article has received the most hits. Or maybe we should favor the article ranking highest on a quality scale. No, I suppose that we should retain the style of the article occupying the merged article's title. But wait, we're merging in multiple articles that all contain a different style, so wouldn't it make more sense to stick with that? And what if we're merging all of these articles into a brand new title?

Do you see what I mean? "Respect the original style" seems like a simple concept until one thinks through the complications that can (and do) arise.

Conversely, when we maintain a consistent style, the ambiguities vanish.

2. In this context, "address" means "to deal with or discuss." No one is demanding that you agree with us or believe that a satisfactory resolution has been reached, but it's extremely frustrating when you reiterate the same concerns without acknowledging that we've even responded, let alone attempting to refute the arguments with which you disagree (which, to someone reading your messages, apparently don't exist).

3. I, too, regard some of the arguments (on both sides) as insubstantial, but I don't pretend that they haven't been made (and express bewilderment regarding the positions that they're intended to defend, as though no reasons at all have been provided). —

David Levy

02:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

John, I understand what you’re saying, but for many online versions of major newspapers, I see precious little in the way of copy editing. Perhaps it’s the result of cutbacks, perhaps it’s the result of time pressures. And in any event, it would seem to cost just as much to enforce a house style of typewriter quotes. JeffConrad (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At a professional publication, that's true. At Wikipedia, it's false (simply because most of our editors use straight quotation marks). —

David Levy

03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, my point here was that I am unconvinced that organizations that use typographical quotes incur great costs in doing so. JeffConrad (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm expressing agreement with your point that professional publications likely incur similar expenses either way (which actually undermines your "cutbacks" theory) and noting that this doesn't apply to Wikipedia. —

David Levy

05:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The arguments for are better than the arguments against. It has been established that Wikipedia requires consistency across articles, not across all of Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, as a non-involved editor, the arguments for and against have been essentially equal in quality... On the issue of whether to keep or remove the material, I would say that there is "no consensus" either way. No ideas on how to resolve that except by counting heads. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the arguments against the use of curly quotation marks are far stronger than the arguments for their use. Of course, both of us (Darkfrog24 and David Levy) are hopelessly biased.

No one has asserted that consistency across all of Wikipedia is required. But it's very much preferred unless there is a good reason to incorporate inconsistency (such as differences among English varieties). "We believe that our way looks better" (scare quotes) has not been accepted as a good reason to invite inconsistency. —

David Levy

16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of things in which WP requires inter- but not intra-article consistency, many of which don't correlate strongly with BrE/AmE difference: whether to use unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, whether to separate fields in citations with commas or periods, whether to use BC/AD or BCE/CE, whether the possessive of James is James' or James's, whether or not to use the

vectors by boldface or by arrows above, whether the metric signature of spacetime is (+++−) or (+−−−) or (−+++) or (−−−+), yadda yadda yadda. A. di M. (talk

) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From one of my messages within the discussion, timestamped 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC):

I agree that Wikipedia already contains avoidable inconsistencies. We should be working to eliminate them, not introducing new ones.

The inconsistencies that you cite have led to countless arguments/edit wars and a great deal of wasted time and effort. I can't imagine why anyone (irrespective of personal preference) would want to add quotation marks to the above list.

As I noted in a message timestamped 16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC), "while I've expressed a clear preference for the use of straight quotation marks, I agree [with the user to whom I responded] that a complete changeover to curly ones would be preferable to the needless inconsistency proposed. Let's not transform every article into a quotation mark battleground."

Incidentally, a material difference between quotation marks and the above examples is that our editors (including those unfamiliar with the MoS) overwhelmingly favor a particular style of quotation marks (rendering their uniform adoption easier to implement and maintain than any alternative would be). —

David Levy

19:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer straight quotes but support permitting curly quotes. That's hopeless bias? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to bias toward a particular discussion outcome, not toward a particular quotation mark style. Anyone who favors a particular discussion outcome (including you and me) lacks the objectivity needed to fairly gauge consensus or the lack thereof. —

David Levy

19:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It is perfectly possible for a human creature to fairly judge such things independently of his or her own interests and preferences. However, to establish whether or not consensus exists in this particular case, we would first have to hammer out exactly what consensus is. I don't think anyone's ever done that here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't assert that it's impossible for someone with a vested interest in the discussion's outcome to analyze it in a dispassionate manner. In my mind, that's what I've done. I assume that you believe the same of your analysis, but you and I have arrived at opposite conclusions.

My point is that while it's perfectly reasonable for us to express our views regarding the various arguments, they mustn't be relied upon as impartial. —

David Levy

23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would the esteemed editors consider taking this overall discussion on quotation marks to a separate public page? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's examine this pragmatically. (quotes)

A great deal has been written and debated, with many conflicting ideas and principles tossed back and forth (to the extent that the discussion has become muddy and difficult to follow). So I think that it might be helpful to take a step back and break down the individual points of contention:

1. The first thing to decide is whether we regard straight quotation marks as "incorrect." It's quite clear that there's no consensus for that.

2. Having established that, we must similarly address curly quotation marks. It's equally obvious that we don't regard them as "incorrect" either.

3. So now we must decide on what style (or styles) to permit within the encyclopedia's general prose.

3a. Does the fact that neither style is incorrect mean that we must accept both? No, the MoS contains many instances in which one legitimate style has been selected over one or more others. Inter-article consistency isn't always feasible, but it's generally preferred. However, there also are instances in which we have accepted multiple styles, so it's reasonable to consider doing so.

3b. What are our options? Our options are as follows:

• Use curly quotation marks exclusively (apart from common-sense exceptions, of course). Most of us agree that this is untenable.
• Allow "shepherding authors" to replace straight quotation marks with curly ones and monitor the affected articles to maintain consistency. This falls dangerously close to
  WP:OWN
  territory and relies upon the assumption that curly quotation marks are preferable to straight ones (for which there clearly isn't consensus).
• Allow the original non-stub editor's selection to stand. This principle often is misunderstood. It's intended to serve as a last resort ("when all else fails") in situations in which we have nothing else to go by (e.g. when the article's subject doesn't dictate the use of a particular English variety). It doesn't mean that we must respect every convention preferred by a substantial segment of users. We routinely replace the original editor's otherwise valid style when it doesn't comply with the MoS.
• Use straight quotation marks exclusively (apart from common-sense exceptions, of course). How does this compare to the previous option? Well, it requires us to edit articles to remove a style that some of our editors prefer (curly quotation marks). But said editors compose a small minority. Almost all of our editors use straight quotation marks (and will continue to do so no matter what we decide here). Therefore, the previous option entails considerably more work; it requires us to replace far more errant quotation marks (straight ones introduced to articles written with curly ones, as opposed to the comparatively tiny number of curly ones introduced encyclopedia-wide). The previous option also would lead to edit wars stemming from ignorance of the principle and disputes regarding which style was used in the first non-stub versions of articles (as well as the infamous "well, yeah, the initial change shouldn't have been made, but that was a long time ago and the article has been stable since then" scenario).

So the bottom line, as I see it, is that it simply is far more practical to consistently maintain the style used by a vast majority of editors (given the fact that we don't regard it as "incorrect") than it is to implement any of the alternatives. Those who prefer curly quotation marks shouldn't interpret this as a slight, just as those who prefer traditional punctuation (not even a minority!) shouldn't regard our exclusive use of logical punctuation as such.

To be clear, I'm aware that the above wording favors my arguments. It isn't intended to serve as a neutral summary, which also would be helpful. —

16:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice summary. I think I was on the curly side from personal preference and because more of "my homies" were on that side. But as I think about it, more and more, I think just being a stern captain of the ship and saying let's use straight makes sense for now. Probably, there will come a time when the wiki engine imrpoves in functionality. But at this point we need to be realistic about the trade-off of an "anyone can edit" encyc. that also is displayed on monitors, versus the SUPERIOR work product that can be put out on professionally typeset book. (Or even on a fixed website, where you pay someone to put it together and it has minimal changes.) Certainly, I think curlies are just FINE in MS Word, and while occasionally annoyed by autocorrect fjunctions of that program, I think they are really an improvement...for typing in Word. But I've basiccally moved to a die is cast, Rubicon is crossed, Gordion knot is sword-whacked stance on this one. Viva la straighties! Die, curlies! TCO (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially my thoughts on the matter. Curly quotes aren't any more "wrong" or "right" than straight quotes by pretty much any book, but in the final judgement, it makes much more sense to apply the de facto style as de jure. In most cases we want the MoS to codify best common practices, and even proponents of curly quotes have to admit the vast majority of editors use straight quotes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

David Levy, I agree that your summary is strongly biased toward your POV. Although I partially agree on some points, and I agree that it reflects the POV of the majority of those who have commented here. I don’t think it reflects consensus. We’ve beaten the points on which we disagree to death, so I won’t repeat them. A few comments specific to the summary:

1. Although I (and presumably some of the proponents) might not insist that straight quotes are “incorrect”, few who are familiar with typography consider straight quotes good typography (do a Google Books search for typography "quotation marks" incorrect or something similar; you won’t find many who say that straight quotes are bad typography. I may concede that few people know (or care) much about typography.

2. Certainly most web pages use straight quotes; they also violate many other long-accepted principles of typography. I just don’t buy the argument that “everyone does it” as persuasive; recall the USA Today poll showing that 70% of Americans surveyed thought Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

3. If we accept that most editors will do as they damn well please regardless of what we say in the MoS, we don’t need the MoS.

4. You omitted one obvious possibility: actually follow the principle of following the prevailing non-stub style “if it reasonably complies with the MoS”. JeffConrad (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Like you, I don't wish to continue rehashing the relevant arguments. But I'll note that I broke down the issues for a reason.

If straight quotation marks constitute "bad" typography, we shouldn't allow them within the encyclopedia's general prose at all (apart from common-sense exceptions, of course). Few have even suggested that.

This means that the encyclopedia will retain straight quotation marks. Therefore, when deciding whether to also include curly ones, the issue of whether straight ones are "bad" is absent from the equation. We need only examine the possible methods of switching from the exclusive use of straight quotation marks to mixed usage, as well as the effects thereof.

2. The argument is not "everyone does it." It's "most reliable, high-quality websites do it." What you perceive as "[violating] ... long-accepted principles of typography" also can be described as "adhering to differing typographical principles in a new medium."

But again, this is irrelevant to a hypothetical scenario in which both types of quotation marks are described by the MoS as acceptable for use within the encyclopedia's general prose.

3. I address this point in my new reply within the Close RfC section (bearing the same timestamp as this message).

4. I don't understand what distinction you're drawing between that and "allow the original non-stub editor's selection to stand." We're discussing the Manual of Style's content, so if we were to take this route, it would be modified accordingly (and the prevailing non-stub quotation mark style inherently would comply with the MoS). —

David Levy

02:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. As I said, I know of no one who knows anything about typography who considers typewriter quotes good typography; if you have credible evidence to the contrary, I’ll be glad to back off on this statement. The issue is more the importance of some accepted principles of good typography.

2. You again refer to “differing typographical principles in a new medium”, which I think has been extracted from the place where they keep the imaginary diseases. I seriously doubt that most web page authors have any principles of typography; sorry if that’s pejorative or arrogant, or both, but I think it’s accurate. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate why the medium makes any difference, much as CMoS indicate. I might object less if it were suggested that the issue is one of the people who contribute to the medium; of course, the same consideration (and perhaps allowance for) unfamiliarity with many other aspects of writing, most of which require far more effort to master.

Agree that if both types of quotes were allowed, this would be of less consequence.

3. I’ll say it yet again: if the MoS is descriptive rather than prescriptive (or proscriptive, as the case may be), any editor is free to do as she pleases. At the very beginning of this discussion, you said precisely the opposite.

4. The distinction is obvious: you cited the example of articles that do not comply with the MoS as subject to changes in style; obviously, stare decisis would not apply in such a case. Unless, of course, the MoS were merely descriptive. JeffConrad (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, Jeff. Editors are not free to do as they please. I was brought up on AN/I for doing something that the MoS tells us not to do ("proscriptive"), even though I was making articles internally consistent by so doing. It might be nice if the MoS were just a suggestion or a guideline in the Pirates of the Caribbean sense, but in practice it is not. That is why it must be written and edited carefully. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm baffled as to how Jeff read my earlier explanations and believed that I claimed otherwise. —

David Levy

17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

By no means to I suggest that the MoS is to be ignored. I simply have no problem distinguishing between recommendations and mandates when words are interpreted according to their common meanings (and if they are not, nothing means anything). As I mentioned in my reply to David Levy below, this is very common practice. JeffConrad (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't explained what practical purpose this particular text serves if interpreted as optional (and you obviously don't intend to). —

David Levy

03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. How commonly are these principles applied on the websites of reliable, high-quality sources? Do the publishers of newspapers and magazines whose online versions contain straight quotation marks not "[know] anything about typography"?

2. We aren't discussing "most web page[s]." We're discussing reliable, high-quality websites, including those of reputable newspapers and magazines.

Various reasons for the differing style conventions have been discussed here, but we needn't concern ourselves with those (excepting issues affecting our editors, which is a separate matter). The bottom line is that straight quotation marks are widely used on high-quality websites (whether you like it or not).

But as you more or less concede, this is irrelevant to a hypothetical scenario in which both types of quotation marks are described by the MoS as acceptable for use within the encyclopedia's general prose.

3. No, you've misunderstood. The MoS describes the conventions that we've decided to adopt (which are based in large part upon our editors' common practices). When we note that the MoS isn't prescriptive, we mean that we don't follow conventions because they're written there; we write them there because we've decided to follow them.

4. See above. —

David Levy

04:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Within a publishing organization, I there certainly are people who know about typography, and there probably are far more who do not. I’ve not done a survey, and doubt that you have, either. I cannot speak to the reasons for publishers’ decisions; they may have decided that without the assistance of copy editors (and in many cases, the number of errors strongly suggests that there is little proofing of online content), many writers, often facing deadlines, would have trouble with them (I see many hyphens used for dashes, suggesting this isn’t an unreasonable assumption). If this is the case, it’s not terribly unlike the situation we have here, except for deadline. Or the reasons could be entirely different. A decision to use typewriter quotes would not necessarily suggest that publishers consider typewriter quotes good typography; it is far more likely an acquiescence in the practicality of working under deadline. But quite honestly, we’re both guessing.

I don’t think I ever said that I dislike use of typewriter quotes on web sites of major newspapers.

3. I’ve understood descriptive according to its common meaning. To say that the MoS is partially descriptive and partially descriptive, as you’ve essentially now stated is something different.

4. I stand by what I said; there is a difference between following the established style of a non-stub article when that style complies with the MoS, and changing a style that does not. JeffConrad (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1a. Let's assume that your theory is correct. Do you expect Wikipedia editors to uphold a higher degree of care than professional website editors do?

1b. Please explain why most publishers duplicating their print content online replace curly quotation marks with straight ones.

1c. Again, it doesn't matter why the new conventions arose. The bottom line is that they did. The use of straight quotation marks is an established online practice.

1d. And as you acknowledge, none of this is relevant to a hypothetical scenario in which both types of quotation marks are described by the MoS as acceptable for use within the encyclopedia's general prose.

3. No, I'm not saying anything different. I'll copy and paste what I wrote earlier:

• Most of our rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. The addition of an MoS entry without advance discussion can be perfectly appropriate and uncontroversial, provided that it reflects actual practice. For the same reason, "the rules say so" is not a valid argument. (In other words, this rule has remained because the practice that it documents has remained, not the reverse.) [from a reply to you, 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)]
• Professional style guides, contrary to our MoS, are prescriptive rather than descriptive. They've been slow to address the Internet (including its terminology) and acknowledge its stylistic differences. It made headlines when the AP Stylebook finally switched from "Web site" to "website" (reflecting longstanding common usage).
• As previously noted, our MoS is descriptive, not prescriptive. If it doesn't accurately describe our conventions, it should be revised. And of course,
  consensus can change
  (which is why we're having this discussion). Users of varying opinions are providing arguments as to why their preferred outcomes are advantageous. "The rules [don't] say so" is a weak rationale for any of us to advance. [both from a reply to you, 12:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)]
• [The] MoS is descriptive. As noted below, it describes current practices (as determined both by analyzing those that prevail and by discussing possibilities and deciding what works best).
  Meanwhile, a style manual like the AP Styleguide or the Chicago Manual of Style hands down decisions from above. From a practical standpoint, the distinction is that publications following such a manual can legitimately decide to apply a particular convention "because the guide says so" (no analysis required). Some occasionally opt to deviate, but this is optional and relatively uncommon.
  Conversely, if someone objects to an entry from Wikipedia's MoS (on the basis that it either doesn't accurately describe current practice or a belief that said practice ought to be modified), we have discussions such as this one. And my point is that within such discussions, there's little need to debate an entry's disputed meaning (because we're here to determine what makes the most sense and describe that in the MoS, not to blindly abide by whatever already has been written there). [from a reply to Darkfrog24, 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)]

4. Sorry, I still don't understand what point you're arguing or how it contradicts anything that I've written. At least one (if not both) of us must have misunderstood the other. —

David Levy

17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let’s not beat it to death any further. JeffConrad (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TCO,

1. I fail to see how there is a material difference between something done with MS word or anything else except that the latter may require slightly greater effort. And of course, some WP editors use MS Word and paste the results into the edit window, in which case it’s a non-issue.

2. Of course our principle is that “anyone can edit”, but I don’t think we mean it quite so literally. For example, I certainly hope this doesn’t include people who know nothing about the subject of an article or who insist on inserting strong POV.

3. (To David Levy as well). Perhaps I’m hopelessly biased because I learned document processing using markup language, but find it hard to believe that people with any significant writing experience lack at least rudimentary computer skills. Many editors here enter other special characters all the time, and it makes no sense to say they somehow cannot do the same with quotes. Again, if we say they will use straight quotes anyway, whether or not they can do otherwise, why tell them to do anything? JeffConrad (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Again, you're focusing on the "slightly greater effort," thereby ignoring repeated explanations that we aren't in a position to inform most editors of how to engage in it (let alone expect them to comply).

2. A Wikipedia editor need not possess any prior knowledge of a subject before editing its article. He/she need only cite reliable sources when introducing factual information and refrain from inserting content that we regard as inappropriate (including non-NPOV material). And of course, plenty of editing has no bearing on factual claims.

3a. What is the relevance of "people with any significant writing experience"?

3b. Once again, you're repeating your "How are quotation marks any different from other special characters?" (scare quotes) argument, misleadingly implying that the point has not been addressed.

3c. We aren't telling the users in question to do anything. Most of them will never see the MoS. We're describing what they do and advising the tiny minority of editors concerned with maintaining style conventions to act in kind. —

David Levy

02:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Again, you say “we aren't in a position to inform most editors of how to engage in it [entering special character]”. Nonsense; we mandate use of special characters in many cases, and to expect any attempt at compliance without some guidance is elitist and just plain nuts. I don’t see why it’s any different from providing help on tables, images, or TeX.

2. A little knowledge can be dangerous, but person who has researched reliable sources arguably has some knowledge of the subject (copying and pasting, which is disallowed, doesn’t count). Realistically, though, I find it astonishing that someone with no knowledge of a subject would think of writing on it, or that such a contribution would be of value. Sorry if this seems arrogant; it strikes me as simple common sense.

3a. Perhaps I didn’t choose the best words; perhaps I might better have said “experience using a computer”, but are there really hordes of people who have used a computer without ever having written anything? It’s possible, of course, that someone who has never written anything could indeed be quite knowledgeable. I think this is an unusual situation, however. My point was that making any worthwhile contribution requires at least rudimentary knowledge of the mechanics, such as providing usable references to reliable sources (let alone formatting them). For many, myself included, this is a continuing learning experience. The effort to learn how to deal with special characters is trivial by comparison.

3b. We disagree on the appropriateness of “scare quotes”, and I take issue with “misleading”. If the main thrust is that quote characters (especially apostrophes) occur more frequently than other characters, then you and I probably don’t disagree (though I wouldn’t mind some quantitative examples). To put this in perspective: it takes a lot more effort to add references than to simply make a few statements; does this mean we should not require the former because it is too difficult for some editors?

3c. Again, if the MoS is descriptive, no one is bound by it. JeffConrad (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. We don't expect most editors to generate any special characters, including the oft-mentioned dashes. People often type non-MoS-compliant approximations, which we replace. Some have advocated that we take the same approach with curly quotation marks, while others (myself included) have cited material distinctions between dashes and quotation marks. In response to you, I wrote:

And yes, relatively few editors will enter dashes either. But as previously noted, because their approximations vary wildly (e.g. one hyphen, two hyphens, surrounded by spaces, not surrounded by spaces), this is an element that we need to clean up anyway (to maintain intra-article consistency, at the very least). Conversely, almost every Wikipedia editor uses a particular style of quotation marks, so sticking to it means that few instances will require modification.

It also has been noted that dashes appear far less frequently than quotation marks do and are easier to recognize as different. Other distinctions have been noted, but some are irrelevant to the issue discussed above.

3a. Again, no one is asserting that learning how to generate special characters is difficult. It simply isn't something that most of our editors will do (or even know that it's expected of them, which it really isn't).

3b. I don't assert that your comments are intentionally misleading, but they are misleading.

That quotation marks occur more frequently than other characters is one of several distinctions. I personally regard the one that I copied and pasted above (which you

presumably

don't recall reading) as the most significant.

Unsourced claims reduce the encyclopedia's quality. There is neither consensus that straight quotation marks reduce the encyclopedia's quality nor a formal proposal to disallow their use.

3c. See above. —

David Levy

04:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Be assured I read your earlier response; I didn’t ignore it, but was simply unpersuaded. I would hope reasonable people can disagree without taking offense.

3a. Actually, there have been more than a few comments about the difficulty of entering special characters. I’m not sure it’s even been established that most editors prefer straight quotes; as several others have suggested, many may not know otherwise. I would again guess that neither of us has done a survey.

I certainly found this to be the case when I first got involved with electronic document preparation; prior to the computer, typographical quotes were not an option, so no one even gave thought to using them. After a couple of brief discussions (OK, I strongly encourage my staff to use the proper marks. But let’s be realistic: the basic document editor had to master quotes, dashes, and sometimes trademark symbols and minus and multiplication signs; others had to deal with mathematics, tables, graphs, and so on, to which a few special characters paled by comparison). The key thing is that people simply did it. But this was some time ago, so conditions may now be different in a way that I’ve failed to notice.

As you suggest later (and I largely concur), this issue may be moot. I still see no problem with a Help article or subsection that describes how to use these characters, whether or not we expect most editors to use them. With a bit of demystification, more people just might use them, as I just illustrated.

3b. I don’t see what GF has to do with it. I’ve acknowledged many times that apostrophes are probably more frequent than most other special characters, but I’m not convinced that makes them materially different. It should be obvious that we disagree on this issue, and probably will continue to do so.

I’m not sure what you mean by “unsourced claims”, but I agree there is no consensus for the changes proposed, or that straight quotes reduce quality (there is also no consensus that they do not, though I don’t think the proponents have made a big deal of this). There is no formal proposal to disallow the use of typewriter quotes, although you have repeatedly claimed that the MoS currently does so, and some have suggested (though not formally proposed) that we proscribe them. By repeatedly quoting the register, I have simply maintained that there is no consensus for such a proscription. If we reasonably agree on this, there is no need for further argument. JeffConrad (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Again, I'm not offended by your disagreement. I only object to your continual reiteration of points in a manner implying that no counterpoints (whether persuasive or unpersuasive) have been written.

I am interested in why you regard that particular argument as unpersuasive. Do you dispute the assertion that most Wikipedia editors generate a particular style of quotation marks (straight ones)? Do you dispute the assertion that the same editors introduce varying approximations of dashes (e.g. one hyphen, two hyphens, surrounded by spaces, not surrounded by spaces), thereby requiring significant cleanup (to maintain intra-article consistency, at the very least), regardless of what style[s] we adopt?

3a. Indeed, the relative difficulty of entering straight quotation marks is highly relevant, but not in the context that you've continually addressed.

If a standard computer keyboard included curly quotation mark keys (and especially if it also didn't include a straight quotation mark key), the marks' use would be significantly easier and more intuitive. Because that isn't the case, almost all of our editors simply type in the manner to which they're accustomed (i.e. with straight quotation marks).

You've noted (and I don't dispute) that learning how to generate curly quotation marks is not extremely difficult. But most of our editors will never even become aware of the option, let alone see a need to take advantage of it. They'll simply continue typing the familiar, widely used quotation marks that appear on their keyboards.

3b. I linked to

WP:AGF

to emphasize my assumption that you aren't intentionally ignoring my points. You've made this slightly more difficult by again implying that my argument is based primarily upon frequency of use (in response to a message in which I explicitly stated that I regard a different distinction, copied and pasted above, as more significant).

By "unsourced claims," I'm referring to claims for which

reliable sources have not been cited

.

You appear to be under the mistaken impression that

David Levy

17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The intent was not to suggest that no counterpoints have been written.

3a. I don’t know what you mean by the context I’ve continually addressed, but I don’t think continued discussion is worth the time.

We’ve beaten this to death several times, and probably won’t accomplish much by continuing. JeffConrad (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As previously noted, I don't allege that such was your intent.

I'm disappointed by your decision to decline answering my questions. —

David Levy

03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

David Fuchs, I would say that anything made de jure that isn’t consensus isn’t de jure. And I would say that after this discussion, the statement “Currently there is no consensus regarding which quotation glyphs to use” that begins the register on quotation marks for the project still holds.

Again, I fear our greatest problem in wrapping this up is, whether or not we admit it, we agree to disagree on the consensus of the discussion. Or even on what “consensus” is. JeffConrad (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The MoS has long recommended against the use of curly quotes. The vast majority of editors use straight quotes. The vast majority of articles use straight quotes. There's no clear consensus that the MoS should be amended above. That's pretty much de facto and de jure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see how it’s de jure, but completely agree there is no consensus for any of the changes exactly as proposed, so I’m not sure we really disagree. The MoS currently discourages but does not proscribe their use; the main thrust of the proposals would be to put the onus of maintaining intra-article consistency on those editors would would use typographical quotes anyway. Though I originally suggested that changing typewriter quotes to typographical quotes should not be objectionable, it’s clear that such an approach has no support, so I withdrew the suggestion, as I’ve mentioned several times. Were I to submit a new proposal, I would amend it to require that editors defer to the use of straight quotes in a non-stub article. I’m not sure we need to do that, however, because this would seem covered by the general principle of stare decisis for most matters of style (though I’m not sure this was clear prior to this discussion).

So if that’s all on which we disagree, as far as I am concerned, we can close this discussion with the conclusion that there is no consensus for the changes proposed, provided that we don’t attempt to slip any other conclusions into it, except perhaps to confirm that the prevailing quote style for a non-stub article is to be treated the same as any other matter of pure style, and that it is not to be changed without consensus. In particular, the comment in the register would remain as is unless we somehow determine that we have examined any new issues. I would, of course, like to see that this is acceptable to most of the other proponents before signing off on it. JeffConrad (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. You've yet to explain how your interpretation of the MoS (that it "discourages but does not proscribe" the use of curly quotation marks) makes any sense from a practical standpoint. Again, what would be the logic in conveying "x is recommended and y is not recommended, but feel free to do whatever you please"? Thus far, your response has boiled down to "I don't know, but that's what it says, so that must be what it means."

And of course, the MoS is intended to reflect accepted practices, not the reverse.

2. We've discussed the problems with "[putting] the onus of maintaining intra-article consistency on those editors would would use typographical quotes anyway."

3. If editors would be expected to "defer to the use of straight quotes in a non-stub article," how would Wikipedia benefit (assuming, for the sake of argument, that curly quotation marks are stylistically superior)?

4. We do not have a "general principle of stare decisis for most matters of style." We fall back on such a principle as a last resort (i.e. when there is no other valid reason to favor a particular style). "For most matters of style," we seek encyclopedia-wide consistency. Exceptions (stemming most notably, but not exclusively, from differences among English varieties) arise when no particular style sufficiently predominates among our editors. Straight quotation marks overwhelmingly predominate. They're used by a vast, vast majority of our editors.

5.As noted above, you appear to be under the mistaken impression that

David Levy

17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I can’t explain it because I can’t read minds, but I suggested a plausible explanation far above. It doesn’t really matter, though because I interpret words according to their common meanings without asking rhetorical questions. Do a Google search for "recommends but does not require" or "encourages but does not require" and you’ll find this is not uncommon practice.

4. The MoS reads as it reads. This is simple common sense as well as a basic principle of good editing.

5. I see it as no more biased than your initial summary, and think the statement of lack of consensus is still correct. As to disheartening, I feel the same way about most of the arguments presented here. But you and I will never agree on this, and at this point, I’m not sure it matters. Let’s move on, as Tony and Student7 have begged us to do. JeffConrad (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1/4. You haven't explained what logical purpose this particular text serves if interpreted as optional. I honestly can't think of one.

And again, the MoS isn't a document to be blindly followed. It's supposed to be based upon accepted practices, not the reverse. "The MoS says so" (not an actual quotation), without regard for whether it makes practical sense or reflects reality, never is an appropriate rationale.

5. My comments were neither intended to serve as an impartial summary nor represented as such (as I explicitly noted when authoring them). Conversely, you've repeatedly cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register as though it's a formal, binding document.

Unfortunately, I must agree that the discussion isn't accomplishing much at this juncture. I never expected to change your mind, but I hoped to improve your understanding of my perspective (and given the time and effort that we mutually invested, I imagine that you possessed a similar aspiration). —

David Levy

03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. Guys, there's no way most contributors are going to read this much text. Could I suggest in future that points be made very tightly? On the substantive matter, while I prefer to see curly quotes, I seem to remember there are good technical reasons for using straight quotes, but don't ask me what they were. I've abided by that ever since. Articles would need to be consistent if the option of using curlies were made available. That's all from me. Tony (talk)
  14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony on this one. I gave up about a week ago trying to follow this discussion, and almost removed this talk page from my watchlist because of it, even as I was trying to follow other discussions here. As for me, I too prefer typographer's quotes over typewriter quotes, but consistency will need to be key. Imzadi 1979 → 15:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I agree. I opened this discussion primarily to challenge one statement in the MoS (which has been changed as a result). I regret having taken the discussion any further; previous discussions should have given fair warning of what was to result. Editors agree to disagree on this issue. We should kill it and move on. JeffConrad (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

David Levy, I don’t mean to dodge your questions; however:

• We’re making the MoS Talk page almost impossible for others to monitor.
• Accordingly, they’re begging us to stop.
• This discussion has become so complex that it is very difficult to reply. Because of edit conflicts, it took three tries to make the last replies scattered throughout the document. Making individual replies would just make things worse for other users.

There are many issues on which I don’t think we’re going to agree regardless of how much we discuss it, but if we must do so, can we do it via e-mail? I have a feeling the discussion would not be brief, and I don’t want it cluttering up my Talk page, either. If there’s a better approach, I’m open to that as well. JeffConrad (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate the above response. If you're most comfortable continuing via e-mail, that's fine by me. —

David Levy

04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don’t care, and don’t object to making the discussion available to others (as if anyone would care ...). If there is a way to follow Student7’s request that we continue on some other page, that’s also OK, but I don’t where such a page would be (my Talk isn’t it). JeffConrad (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, a common solution is to create a dedicated sub-page (which anyone is free to watch or ignore). —

David Levy

06:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine with me; any location but my user space is OK. In any event, a man with a trombone case just came to my door and suggested that I consider commenting no further here . . . JeffConrad (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion did intend that others interested in the topic be able to continue following and participating in the discussion. So the new discussion location would ideally be posted here below with some close out notice. When you have reached a solution, you might post it here for a few days and listen to the anguished comments of those who wish they had followed it more closely!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)