Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 158

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 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 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

→

Capitalisation of the conservation statuses of biological species

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The is an ongoing discussion about the capitalisation of the conservation statuses of biological species on Talk:Conservation status#Capitalisation of conservation statuses. Please do not hesitate to take part!

Coreyemotela (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC). [Reposted from WT:MOSCAPS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)]

I commented there that I do not consider this necessarily parallel with my close for common names of species. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Downcaps" and now "Least Concern"

Now the "consensus" is to reduce names commonly and internationally accepted such as "Common Tern" to "common tern", can we please have some advice on how to capitalise IUCN levels of extinction. Most articles, per the standard IUCN nomenclature, use capitalisation such as "Least Concern" but clearly in light of the recent move to reduce this kind of capitalisation, we should be looking to change all instances to "least concern". Please advise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No, why? That is a completely different thing. Haven't enough editors left over this already? Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Consistency and editors leaving are completely different things. If you guys want to keep pushing this kind of thing, we need consistency. I don't understand why "Common Tern" which is universally known as "Common Tern" is known in Wikipedia as "common tern" yet we're keeping "Least Concern" where our guidelines clearly need to advocate (and mandate in some cases) "least concern". Please explain the difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be our least concern, but for some it isn't. A Boy was Born was published like that, but not on Wikipedia. Why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. But what I can't understand is that within a single article (e.g. Common Tern) we have an explicit reference to assist our reader in why it's called "Common Tern", and not "common tern", despite the "best efforts" of the groups of paper-pushers here, and then, with a modicum of examination, we have a barely tolerable "Least Concern" which surely sets the teeth of those paper-pushers chattering to the point of fracture. All I'm interested in is a consistent approach. Decapitalise Common Tern against all reliable sources, then you must do the same to Least Concern. Surely... (or do we need another RFC to cater for IUCN classifications just so we can change them against all internationally recognised standards?) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In the RFC on bird names, and in many previous discussions linked-to by various people during that RFC, evidence was presented that many, possibly most, reliable sources used lowercase for bird names, despite the preference of some specialist sources for uppercase. Can the same be said of IUCN classifications, i.e. do many/most sources use lowercase for them, like they do for bird names? (And does it even matter whether they do or not? It was frequently argued during the RFC that reliable sources of facts are not necessarily authorities on style.) And are the names of the stages of a scale like the IUCN's actually comparable to words for animals, anyway? (These are not rhetorical questions; I don't know the answers.) -sche (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Arguing from false premises isn't likely to help here. If there is universal agreement, wikipedia will go with it; there clearly is not agreement on capitalizing common tern and other bird names, so we go with our default of not using caps where caps are not necessary. I haven't looked into the IUCN category terms, so can't answer that one yet. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I looked in books, searching for IUCN and "least concern". Looks like close to half (3 of first 10, 6 of next 10, 5 of third 10, when I looked) use lower case. So it seems pretty clear that we should go with caps being "not necessary" for these categories. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your graph was fascinating, but ultimately provided no information to me, but thanks for trying. Also you link to "books" only, why would you do that? Do you not consider any online sources to be reliable? In any case, if "Least Concern" should be "least concern" in normal prose, should I hope to see an RFC or should I unilaterally change all instances of the "Least Concern" to "Least concern" in info boxes and "least concern" in running text? I need to know because the implementation of the down caps of the birds has been so poorly handled and has left thousands of articles look utterly abysmal because of lazy admins and editors who just "move" the page, I just want to make sure it'd be the right thing to do to add more detritus to the ever-growing pile. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut(s) to MOS:Gender-neutral language

Our only current shortcut is WP:SHE. This is problematic for a number of reasons:

1) WP:SHE is counter-intuitive, and, as the previous section suggests, people looking for it will often tend to type in WP:GNL and end up concluding that gender-neutral language is only an essay that can be ignored. At least for the time being, we're possibly stuck with WP:GNL going there. But creating MOS:GNL would arguably at least reduce the problem.
2) WP:SHE, being the opposite of gender-neutral, is pretty surreal in the present context, possibly to the point where it may subconsciously tend to bring the guideline into disrepute, perhaps especially among some male editors. Once again, at least for the time being, we're possibly stuck with WP:SHE. But creating WP:S/HE would arguably reduce the problem, both by giving us a gender-neutral version of that shortcut, as well as indicating how WP:SHE probably originated in something gender-neutral that got conveniently shortened to reduce unnecessary keystrokes (so that most people will probably continue to use WP:SHE, but that's arguably somewhat irrelevant). Ideally I'd have liked to gender-balance WP:SHE with WP:HE, but I'm stuck with the fact that WP:HE already goes to Wikipedia:Hebrew.

So for the time being I'm planning to now try to create the two new shortcuts I've suggested above (MOS:GNL, and WP:S/HE), while asking here whether anybody has any better suggestions, either for the short term or for the longer term. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, though, as already mentioned, better short-term or long-term suggestions may still be desirable.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Before I clicked on it, I thought SHE would take me to the section about using a transperson's preferred pronoun. It's not as intuitive as we might hope. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have guessed that second, after guessing that it would take me to something like WikiProject:Women. (Since I edit Wiktionary and deal with language codes a lot, the possibility that it would direct me to a page on Sheko did also enter my mind.) Bravo to Tlhslobus for coming up with WP:S/HE, which is significantly more intuitive. PS, I've added a "you may also be looking for" hatnote to WP:HE. -sche (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,-sche. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Having WP:GNL and MOS:GNL redirect to different places is certainly confusing. Would anyone object to re-redirecting WP:GNL to the more authoritative page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral_language rather than that essay)? -sche (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not much objection, PROVIDED you find and add in a new not-already-in-use and equally short shortcut to the essay, as the existing alternative shortcut WP:GENDER is inconveniently long, and most people probably want to go to the short MOS:GNL section here just once, but repeatedly go to the longer and more informative essay for suggestions and advice. However please note that the change will initially create some confusion among those who were expecting to find themselves at the essay, so others may well object that on balance the change does more harm than good. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For the new shortcut to the essay, WP:GN2 might be a good idea, with a new WP:GN1 (as well as WP:GNL) going here . This would hopefully have the advantage of making it more likely that people will learn that "It's not just an essay that can be ignored", while still leaving a short shortcut. The already mentioned disadvantage is the initial confusion among those who are used to WP:GNL taking them to the essay, and I don't know whether or not this cost outweighs the benefit, so I currently intend leaving that decision to others (though I may well change my mind later). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, at least for now I'm still going to leave to others the question of whether to redirect WP:GNL from the essay to here, but I'm now going to create WP:GN1 to here and WP:GN2 to the essay, as this causes no confusion, and ensures that we have something as conveniently short as WP:SHE to go here (as WP:SHE still does, but another user has removed it from our visible list of shortcuts, which arguably makes a lot of sense in terms of avoiding ridicule for the section, as originally mentioned). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Done (created WP:GN1 + WP:GN2), but, as already mentioned, at least for now I'm going to leave to others the question of whether to redirect WP:GNL from the essay to here, with the pros and cons mentioned in the above paragraphs.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation and footnotes

Punctuation and footnotes currently implies that citations should be always be placed after any terminal punctuation to which it is adjacent, regardless of whether it makes logical sense. Given such rules as MOS:LQ, it seems odd that references aren't given the same treatment.

In my mind, it should be after such punctuation only if it is a reference for the whole sentence (or portion thereof) that the punctuation mark is closing.

Is there a reason the rule is as it is, or can we change it? — Smjg (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is so subtle that trying to convey a semantic distinction based on the location of the footnote isn't going to work - the reader simply won't pick it up - and if so we may as well standardise on the less-ugly one :-). Presumably this would be intended to distinguish between, say, "sources the last element in a list of things" versus "sources the whole list"? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Our guidance on footnotes reflects the most common way they are done, I think. Some publications will put them before punctuation, but that is rarer and I don't think it has anything to do with whether you are using British or American punctuation style. AFAIK, it is not normal to sometimes put them after and sometimes before. Formerip (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's one of the most hard and fast rules of style that I know. Those of us who teach classes where we require (and grade) term papers, (I require Chicago Manual of Style for mine) note this is used for all of them. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Gray: Either that, "sources the last clause in a sentence" versus "sources the whole sentence" or anything along these lines.

Formerip: Are you telling me that, in your experience, most publications will put citations after the punctuation regardless of whether it is a reference for the whole sentence or just the final bit of it? In any case, just being "not normal" isn't in itself a valid argument against something.

Montanabw: How often, generally speaking, do you/your students cite a reference for just a bit of a sentence rather than the whole sentence? — Smjg (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. You can put a footnote mid-sentence if it's appropriate. But if it is next to a punctuation mark, it's customary for the punctuation mark to go first. In terms of the MoS, I have to disagree and say that "not normal" is actually a very strong argument. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on why you feel copying what's "normal" is far more important than being logical or not misleading (which is the rationale behind MOS:LQ)? — Smjg (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

See below. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The point is that references always follow punctuation, any punctuation. Law is another area where this is true. Only wiki seems to want a fn after every 3rd word, but in the law, a sentence can have multiple citations, yes. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at legal texts from a variety of countries and found this? I would have thought that in these it's more important to be clear on what a reference relates to, and so there would be notations for them that achieve this clarity. And besides, WP is not a legal text, so is what the legal texts do relevant? — Smjg (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a WP:CHEESE argument with you. Go read any mainstream manual of style in the English language, at least in North America, MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, Bluebook (for law), ALWA (law), etc. Punctuation comes before references. If you don't know that, then you might want to go finish college or something. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's part of the problem - you appear to be restricting yourself to manuals of style in North America. Wikipedia is a worldwide project. But regardless, just because certain manuals of style prescribe it doesn't mean it's the only correct way to do it. — Smjg (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK appears to be much the same, and you sir, are now entering trolldom. You obviously don't write much and certainly not for publication. Good day. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Do you have a differing authority? So far "certain manuals" constitutes all of 'em. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I do leave open the possibility that someone might have a different version written on the toilet paper in the basement of their mommy's house. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't given me any explanation of why you think copying what other works (let alone works of completely different nature) do is more important than being logical or not misleading. And in any case, insulting people is childish. I would also advise you to read WP:NPA. — Smjg (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Copying what is standard English is definitely more important than doing what any one of us or group of us happens to think is logical. It's too subjective. It might be logical to spell "freight" without the h or g, but "freat," "frayt," "freit" and "frait" make equal sense and are all difficult for the reader to interpret. English might look nuts, but it works. Don't fix what isn't broken.

But yeah, if you, Smjg, or anyone else can find reliable manuals of style that do it the other way, then sure. If English does it both ways, then so should we. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Smjg: a sharp comment that hurts your feelings is hardly a personal attack. And the sharpness is due entirely to a basic fact, that any authority beats no authority, and you have yet, despite several hints, failed to point to any authority (or even common usage) supporting your position. You want to do things more in a British style? Quote from a British authority. (They do exist. Didn't you see any at college?) If you just whine that you think something should be otherwise you won't make much headway. And I'm likely to start making sharp comments myself.

To recapitulate: you think a certain usage would be good. Can you show us that any authority on the topic, from any where in the world, supports such a usage? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this might affect this argument (in which I don't want to get involved, as it seems uncomfortably heated). But I am rather interested in what's being said, if only because of at least one recent painful experience that a logical position rule just might have helped avoid (although in this case what was involved was not the position of a citation but of a 'citation needed' request, although I expect I would have little difficulty in imagining similar disputes resulting from the positioning of citations) - in this context the positioning need not be understood by readers in order to avoid disputes and other problems among editors (an important consideration for us in Wikipedia, which would not normally be relevant to most of those setting possibly different style standards elsewhere). And thus I'd welcome and appreciate some clarification regarding the following apparent error in the opening sentence of this discussion:

Punctuation and footnotes currently implies that citations should be always be placed after any terminal punctuation to which it is adjacent, regardless of whether it makes logical sense.

But it doesn't imply this. It makes two exceptions, one for dashes (which however are not going to be part of terminal punctuation), and one for brackets (aka parentheses), which often are part of terminal punctuation. (To avoid any possible confusion re footnotes vs citations/references, I should perhaps make clear that a footnote usually is a citation/reference, per Help: Footnotes) If the footnote refers only to matter within the brackets, then the footnote should come before the closing bracket. In other words, in this instance at least, Wikipedia already is using 'logical' positioning. I do not know whether this is unique to Wikipedia, nor how long it has operated in Wikipedia. But if it is unique or relatively unique to Wikipedia, and perhaps especially if it has long been Wikipedia's rule, then that seems very relevant to the discussion. So perhaps somebody who knows more about this can tell us how unique it is, and how long it has been our rule. However, even if this conforms to standard practice elsewhere, that would not necessarily be a good reason for conforming to other standard practices elsewhere if that unnecessarily risked causing problems relatively unique to Wikipedia, as already implied earlier. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just the normal way of doing it, not unique to WP. See here, for example.

It's really just an extension of the principle that you don't have to put a footnote at the end of the sentence. If it applies only to part of the sentence, you can put it next to that part. So, if it applies only to what's inside brackets, put it inside the brackets. Formerip (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In spite of some rather dogmatic statements made above, there really is no consistency in sources which require heavy use of referencing, such as academic journals. In those using numbered references in the text, the use of superscripts in the text is actually relatively uncommon, compared to parenthesized or bracketed numbers (e.g. "(12)"). One place you most commonly find superscripts is in the list of authors, where they link to institutional affiliations and e-mail addresses. Both styles (i.e. before and after the punctuation) are regularly found. Thus Molecular Biology and Evolution places the superscripts next to the author's surname and before any comma (e.g. here). The American Journal of Botany places the superscripts after a comma in the printed and PDF versions (e.g. here) but before the comma in the online version (e.g. here). I don't think you can deduce a general rule from style manuals or sources. Wikipedia is entitled to choose from among the existing and competing styles. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and we've chosen the most common way of doing it. The way I've never seen it done is sometimes before, sometimes after, which is what's been requested in this section. Formerip (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how anyone would know which is the most common, although my personal impression is that you are right. Note also that superscripts for references in text are most commonly based on the Vancouver style manual. This is clear: "Use superscript numerals outside periods and commas, inside colons and semicolons" [1]. This to me makes it clear that it is based on the traditional style for quotations, which we don't follow in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's easy. Look to the manuals of style that guide editorial proofreading. Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) is one that closely resembles wiki. There are others. Just because some journals have crappy proofreaders or an idiosyncratic style means nothing. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: you wrote above The point is that references always follow punctuation, any punctuation. However, both reliable manuals, such as those explaining the Vancouver style, and reliable uses, such as those in academic journals, make it quite clear that if your "always" is meant to be descriptive, it's wrong. If it's meant to be prescriptive, that's another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) Peter, obviously prescriptive. People make mistakes and even more people don't know how to do it right in the first place. WP allows several styles of footnoting, but given that our computer syntax renders footnotes in a style quite close to CMS and similar guides, then we need to also not just make up random things that don't exist anywhere in the real world - at least when real world examples abound. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we may be in danger of forgetting what the question is. Yes, there are exceptions to the general rule that footnotes precede punctuation. Two of these are highlighted in the MoS. I'm not sure the one about putting them before colons and semicolons reflects usage that is very common. But, whatever. The main thing is that we have an agreed style. The fact that it may not conform to Vancouver style is not a reason to change it.

The original question is about whether you can chop and change, sometimes putting your footnotes before punctuation and sometimes after, depending on what it is you feel you are footnoting, rather than what type of punctuation is involved. That is something that I don't think it will be possible to find in any common style. Formerip (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. And why anyone would still be arguing about that can only be described as tendentious. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason for continuing to discuss the issue isn't difficult to understand. The style choice involved in the placement of superscript references in text is connected with the TQ versus LQ choice (as the Vancouver style makes clear). Writing ...^[1], creates the same blank space along the baseline as ...", but might in some cases be more precise. It's up to us to choose what to do in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote where Vancouver style makes clear that footnoting is connected to Brit/Amer quotation style? Formerip (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP: it wasn't the best wording on my part. Use superscript numerals outside periods and commas, inside colons and semicolons is parallel to, but not exactly the same as, the requirement in TQ for quotation marks always to be placed outside periods and commas, but not necessarily outside other punctuation marks. So it seems clear to me that there is a connection. The real point is that, whatever the reason, "put superscript references outside punctuation" is far from being the only or even the predominant style in use outside Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There might be a connection between TQ and Vancouver style. I don't really know. But we don't use either, so I don't see why it is important.

I'd say that "put superscript references outside punctuation" (with exceptions, as noted) is predominant, since it is what you will see in most style guides, as well as in use in most publications. I agree that it isn't the only style in existence, but its the one we've chosen. Formerip (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP: The original question that started this thread can be put this way: given that we use LQ rather than TQ, why don't we use logical placement of reference superscripts rather than a fixed "typesetter's placement"? Your argument above would support the use of TQ in American English, but that isn't what we do here. I'd like to see an answer to the original question which clearly explains why the arguments that produced a consensus in favour of logical quotation don't apply to referencing. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we, perhaps, add that the rule on parentheses also applies to square brackets?--Boson (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't that obvious? (Ooops, my mistake.) Okay, let's make it clear: the treatment of all brackets (square, double, angled, and curly: [], ⟦ ⟧, <>, {}) follows that of parentheses ("rounded brackets"?). But what about guillemets (double or single: « », ‹ ›): are they a form of bracket? Or quotation marks? (Not that this comes up much in English, but as long as we're here let's be thorough.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't work out if you are letting satire seep in or not. But I'll keep it deadpan. We should never use guillemets in WP's voice, so we should never put a footnote before a closing guillemet, because that would mean putting a footnote inside a quotation. In theory, I guess we would treat them like quotation marks. Formerip (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Name of the section which includes the citations

Should it be called "References" or "Reference list" or something else. all input is welcome at Talk:Albert Anae. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:FNNR. Especially Title:Editors may use any section title that they choose. The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material. This also links to WP:CITEVAR, which suggests we generally shouldn't try to overrule people's choices when the choices are roughly equivalent. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually the section with the footnotes is called "References", less often "Footnotes" or "Notes." If there is a second section for book references (such as when there are refs to multiple pages within a hardcopy book, pdf or google books edition) That section is often called "Sources", "Bibliography" or "works cited." But in short, Elaqueate is right that there isn't a totally hard and fast rule, and I might add, it is not a moral issue. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of common names of species yet again

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The distinction between names of breeds of domestic animals (whether to capitalize them is something about which there is no WP consensus yet) with the common names of species (not capitalized per MOS:LIFE), has popped up again at this proposal to re-capitalize the common name of en equine species: Talk:Przewalski's horse/Archive 1#Requested move. So far, the discussion has only been joined by those who seem to believe it is a domestic breed, despite the article being clear that it is not, and who want to capitalize "Horse" on that basis. Broader input would be useful, especially in light of the lower-casing resolution reached after an enormous debate and a very well-reasoned close at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ownership and the Derry/Londonderry debate

The current state of the Derry/Londonderry usage recommendation is relatively unusual. A compromise was reached ten years ago, not based on standard policy, but a more practical one intended to ‘keep both sides happy’ by using Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county ([2]). The project page ([3]) suggests that any amendments to this should be discussed at WT:IECOLL, not at WP:MOS.

Part 1: Does a project (such as WP:IECOLL) have the authority to design and implement these guidelines and to conduct future discussions, or should this be done at WP:MOS, with the input of any associated projects?
Part 2: Is the Wikipedia community satisfied with the current Derry/Londonderry situation, or, after ten years of development and improvement to Wikipedia’s structure and policies, should a new consultation be opened? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Part 1

Discussion about this should not be held at a Wikiproject. The most appropriate place would be WP:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. Formerip (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to Part 2

My feeling is that the community remains happy with the compromise, in that it still enforces it. No harm in opening a discussion, though. Formerip (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Over-long dispute between WP:FOOTY and MOS:ICONS

Subject trimmed from "Over-long dispute between WP:FOOTY and MOS:ICONS leading to template documentation editwarring, etc."

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#WT:FOOTY canvassing/editwarring against MOS:ICONS compliance. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarify MOS:LQ#LQ

I've long found the handling of this issue pretty confusing, and I think the wording leads to people misunderstanding the application of logical quotation/punctuation in BritEng articles. The problem, as I see it, is that the opening statement reads like a hard-and-fast rule regarding end punctuation for all instances where we place quoted material, even just a single word, at the end of a sentence of our article text. In fact, as implied by a later point, the statement should apply only when we're reproducing a full sentence of quoted material, at least in BritEng or "logical" punctuation. Here's that opening statement:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not, irrespective of any rules associated with the variety of English in use … This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material.

Yet later on we have:

When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside.

And there's allowance for ignoring the fact that a period/full stop appeared inside the quote originally, when its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary.

So, to follow the example given on the page – where the quoted sentence is "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable." – that would allow for a paraphrasing of: Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable". This is logical punctuation.

I see some confusion in Quotation mark#Punctuation also, where again, the emphasis seems to be on a full sentence of quoted material. I'm referring to a statement early in that section: The prevailing style in the United Kingdom and other non-American locales—called British style[13] and logical quotation[14][15]—is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks. That's all true but, as the cite explains, there's more to logical punctuation than that. Subsequent points made at Quotation mark#Punctuation clarify the BritEng approach: Fowler's "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."[16], and "When dealing with words-as-words, short-form works and sentence fragments, this style places periods and commas outside the quotation marks …"

I think we need to clarify the wording here, because in Brit Eng articles, I believe it's incorrect to have that Arthur-said paraphrasing as Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable." But I think a lot of editors maybe take the opening statement at MOS:LQ, and/or the sentence from Quotation mark#Punctuation, as the only criterion to consider.

In addition to making it clear in the opening statement here that we're referring to a quote that constitutes a full sentence, perhaps including that example Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable". would be useful as guidance. (And of course something is needed for when a quoted fragment ends in a comma and our adoption of those quoted words (i.e., in the context of a sentence of article text) happens to require a comma.) JG66 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The opening sentence seems to allow Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable." and I've encountered editors who defend things like that with the argument that the full stop communicates that the quoted sentence ended there. Imo the words "communicate a complete sentence" are ambiguous and we need a better formula that doesn't admit that misinterpretation. And that opening sentence needs to be rephrased so as not to admit the approach: "the source had a full stop there, and I'm quoting it". --Stfg (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

However, quoting the full stop does make the quotation more accurate. Suppose that Arthur actually said: "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable, but too costly to change." Then Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable". is accurately quoted (albeit misleading unless the text later makes his qualification clear). Suppose he actually just said without qualification: "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable." Then either Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable." or Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable". are accurate quotations, but the former has the advantage that it makes it quite clear that his sentence did not continue.

(Slight side issue, but to me this nit-picking over the position of the full stop is inconsistent with the requirement to silently change the initial capital letter, thus not making it clear whether the sentence started at the quoted point. According to MOS:QUOTE I should not write Arthur said "[t]he situation is deplorable and unacceptable." If it's important to show that a complete sentence is quoted by the position of the full stop – which is what seems to be claimed – then it's equally important to show this by the choice of capital for the first letter.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the main point is that the current MOS:LQ text doesn't clearly express its intention. But I'll take you up on your first example: the source might have phrased it the way you did, or it might have said "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable. But it is too costly to change." If the too-costly-to-change part is significant to the article we're writing, then in either case, to omit it is to quote out of context; if it isn't significant, then the full stop is merely a dot. So I think that the question of whether or not the sentence continued after "unacceptable" is nothing more than one of syntax: it doesn't tell us anything about what the writer meant. Ditto, for the same reasons, about whether the sentence started with the first quoted word. But once again, I'd say the only issue that matters here is to say whatever we mean more clearly. --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter (if I may), adding to Stfg's comment: okay, but what would happen if our sentence was Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable", while Tom viewed it as "fairly run of the mill". – we wouldn't feel the need to convey whether there was more in Arthur's sentence, right? That's the point of logical quotation: taking others' words but treating them in the context of the sentence in which we're choosing to reproduce them, not the context in which they appeared originally. When it's a full sentence-worth of quoted matter, no problem, because "logically" the quoted matter merits a full stop. (In fact, when the quote constitutes a full sentence but there happens to be more text in the original, I prefer to add an ellipsis. But that's only when the quoted portion appears at the end of our sentence.)

What I've raised here is the need to ensure that the guideline allows for a basic tenet of (correct) punctuation in BritEng. (Not whether logical quotation/punctuation is infallible!) Right now – and over the last year or two – I've seen this wording create confusion for North American-based editors working on BritEng articles. I can understand why, because the weight given over to the opening statement appears to override the all-important exceptions, as at Quotation mark#Punctuation, I believe. JG66 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

None of this is in any way specific to Brit Eng articles, nor should it be. WP:LQ applies equally to all varieties of English on Wikipedia. If you want to clarify the guidance and examples generally based on what's good for all articles, that's perfectly fine, it's great, but it shouldn't be discussed as if it's only something we'll apply to "BritEng articles". Wikipedia prefers logical quotation in the sense that's it's used internationally, not because it's a part of British English usage. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't matter within the English Wikipedia what the ENGVAR is; precisely the same version of LQ is to be used in all ENGVARs.

What's the authority for saying that a sentence terminal full stop is only quoted (and hence within the quote marks) when the complete sentence is quoted? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that what we say? Then "communicate a complete sentence" could become "is a complete sentence", with greater clarity. I've always wondered whether the second half of a compound sentence is being considered as "communicating" a complete sentence, or something of that ilk. (I agree this isn't a question of ENGVAR; it's a matter of the clear definition of LQ for all ENGVARs, as you say.) --Stfg (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I seem to have excluded all varieties bar British English – exclusion is the last thing I want to achieve. It's just that, as I understand the situation, logical quotation need not be applied in American English, whereas it's standard in BritEng. As it says in Quotation mark#Punctuation: The prevailing style in the United Kingdom and other non-American locales—called British style and logical quotation … vs In the U.S., the prevailing style is called American style, whereby commas and periods are almost always placed inside closing quotation marks. This style of punctuation is common in the U.S. and Canada, and is the style usually recommended by The Chicago Manual of Style and most other American style guides.

So, in my opinion, this MoS point on logical quotation needs to be clarified in its own right – the problem being that readers here (and at Quotation mark) can come away with the idea that the guiding principle is to automatically place a full stop or comma from the quoted material inside the end quotation mark in a sentence on Wikipedia. In fact, that suggested paraphrasing Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable". (from Arthur's original words: "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable.") is closer to a guiding principle, and the point about "plac[ing] all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not" is secondary, as a guideline for when the quote constitutes a complete sentence.

But in addition to this clarification, surely mention needs to be made that LQ is a convention in BritEng, in the same way that the subsections Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Compass points and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Periods (full stops) and spaces offer guidance on usage. JG66 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I do hope this isn't going to become yet another rerun of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 143#RFC: punctuation when quoting. By the consensus there, this is not an ENGVAR issue. Let's just clarify the wording of the current guideline and get back to editing articles. Those interminable discussions are time sinks. --Stfg (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotation mark#Punctuation is an article, not advice about what to do on Wikipedia, (and it looks like it needs some updating). It is about general usage globally outside of Wikipedia, not usage on Wikipedia articles using MOS style. It is not part of the MOS; it is not guidance on how to write Wikipedia articles. Logical quotation applies everywhere on Wikipedia. JG66, there is no reason to mention that WP:LQ applies to any specific English variety, because it applies to all varieties, including American English articles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your original example is already covered by When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The sentence fragment "deplorable and unacceptable" does not communicate a complete sentence, so the guidance currently suggests not putting the period inside. If the sentence fragment is more obviously a complete thought on its own, taken from something like I know many dogs; dogs are good. then including the period when quoting "dogs are good." is arguably justified, based on editor judgement and context. I don't think you can make a hard and fast rule here for what constitutes "communicating a complete sentence" as it depends on the relationship between the parts of the sentence, not whether an "and" or semi-colon was used. Case-by-case judgment is required for logical quotation, and that's not a demand specific to its use on Wikipedia.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely that it's a matter of editorial judgement and context. For example, a whole sentence may be reported in the text, with the opening changed to fit, and the rest quoted. Suppose John Doe said I know that all dogs can be trained. This might appear in an article as John Doe said that he knew that "all dogs can be trained." Here a full stop within the quote marks seems appropriate to me since the full sentence has been reported. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement regarding those examples – "dogs are good" and "all dogs can be trained" both constitute a sentence in their own right. So if a period followed the words originally, it can and should be reproduced. (Although, I believe the inclusion of the word "that" in examples like John Doe said that he knew that "all dogs can be trained." complicates things – according to one school of thought anyway.)

Apologies up-front for repeating myself here …

My point regarding MOS:LQ wording is there's too much emphasis on adherence to whether a period or comma appeared in text originally. Again, the opening paragraph misrepresents logical quotation:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not, irrespective of any rules associated with the variety of English in use. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it has been deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material.

The statement "This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation." is confused, and confusing. As defined on Wiktionary, LQ is in fact: A system of quotation wherein punctuation marks are enclosed within a quotation only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. (The sense of the punctuation, not whether the punctuation is part of the quotation.)

This definition is in keeping with:

Fowler's statement (although one wishes there was more from Fowler on the issue): All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense.
And the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies style guide cited at Quotation mark#Punctuation, specifically: Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation … e.g. Jane said that the situation is 'deplorable'. (When a sentence fragment is quoted, the period is outside.)
Also the sentence following Fowler's in the same Wikipedia article: When dealing with words-as-words, short-form works and [my emphasis] sentence fragments, this style places periods and commas outside the quotation marks …

In other words, it's got nothing to do with whether a full stop or comma appeared in the quoted text originally when we use just a fragment. To repeat, I've seen this create confusion among editors, because we're not conveying the true principle(s) of LQ.

As the wording is currently, I really don't agree that the all-important point comes across adequately in the guideline: When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. (Admittedly, this could well be because the guideline is dwarfed, comparatively, by the section's opening paragraph.) For a start, I'd suggest rewording to should be placed inside – but if we're looking to explain LQ correctly, then something along the lines of: only if the fragment constitutes a complete sentence should the period be placed inside. And, in order to be utterly clear, there should be an example of where end punctuation from the quote is to be ignored, as in the context of Arthur's full quote being partly paraphrased as: Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable and unacceptable". The reason being, Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable". – which is what currently appears on the page – serves to illustrate the guideline "This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time …"; but nowhere is there an illustration of editorial judgment being put into practice, re punctuation according to sense. (To state the obvious, the full stop is after "unacceptable" in the original, not after "deplorable".) JG66 (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition is raw, as usual. In LQ practice at large, where a sentence that ends with a period does not fall at the end of the sentence in which it is quoted, a comma replaces its period and is positioned before the closing quote mark. This is not written into the MOS, and probably should be. Original sentence: The girl kicked the ball to the end of the field. Quoting sentence: "The girl kicked the ball to the end of the field," he reported. Tony (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This example, and others given above, are very helpful. Is there any chance of capturing these things in the guideline itself, and of fixing JG66's issue with the first paragraph? (Unfortunately, I can't offer to do it, as I'm not quite sure enough of getting it right.) --Stfg (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made this series of edits that I think eliminates some of the ambiguity/inconsistency, while adding a couple of examples of incorrect punctuation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work you've put into this. I defer to others on its accuracy, but full marks for clarity. I like "constitutes a complete sentence". --Stfg (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stfg. I'm not sure about Tony's above example, because it involves swapping out a full stop that was present in the source with a comma that was not. I have seen this practiced in some publications, but I wonder if this is really in keeping with minimal change. It seems to me that the best practice is to omit the full stop – as the guideline currently suggests – but not to replace it with a comma inside quotation marks, which might give readers the false impression that the comma was present in the original source. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Perennial rehash. There's nothing confusing about this (use logical quotation, i.e. do not add punctuation to a quotation that was not in the original material being quoted). It's not an ENGVAR matter. British (and Australian, etc.) journalistic and fiction publications frequently use typesetters' quotation, and plenty of American (and Canadian, etc.) publications that value accuracy and precision over insular tradition use logical quotation. We've been over this again and again. There's an incorrect perception that typesetters' quotation is "American style" because some major US-published style guides recommend it, but even Chicago Manual of Style does not recommend it where precision is needed. The consensus has (repeatedly) been that WP values the precision. This "new" (not new at all) LQ kerfluffle is itself rehash; we've already previously dispelled the idea that LQ differs between UK and American English; the confusion is in trying to equate LQ with Oxford style quotation, which is similar to LQ but not identical. It's a false comparison; move on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, it's seems you're a day or two out of date. We've already "moved on", to what was always the main issue here – clarifying in the MoS what exactly LQ is. JG66 (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Except even now I see responses like "My first choice would be scrap WP:LQ entirely and have rules for quotation marks follow ENGVAR...", "The text as it is is a little too worshipful of British/logical style", etc., which clearly indicate that some participants here just don't get it. Commingling a "screw this British imposition!" misunderstanding and rehash with a discussion about how to actually improve the LQ-related wording is kind of dicey. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few more edits that I think resolve any lingering ambiguity, but if I've missed anything then please let me know. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording Editors should never include terminal punctuation inside quotation marks unless that punctuation is present in the source, and the quoted text constitutes a complete sentence. opens things up to the ambiguity in Peter Coxhead's example—to restate, I know that all dogs can be trained. could appear as John Doe said that he knew that "all dogs can be trained." becaue "all dogs can be trained" can in and of itself be a complete sentence, even though it is not the complete sentence the quote was lifted from, nor is it the complete sentence in the hypothetical article—it is a "that clause", and the period should logically punctuate the sentence as a whole that begins with "John Doe" (and thus be outside the quote marks). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Does this edit resolve your concern? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, because "all dogs can be trained" still constitutes "constitutes a complete sentence", and leaves things wide open to soul-draining discussion about where to "logically" place the period. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My first choice would be scrap WP:LQ entirely and have rules for quotation marks follow ENGVAR, but as long as WP:LQ is in place, it should be done as close to right as possible. The MoS should describe correct British English, not anything made up specifically for Wikipedia. If the MoS is wrong, then it should be corrected.

As for Quotation mark, it is an article. It should describe American and British punctuation accurately, regardless of whether the MoS follows either system. Ideally, the MoS and the article would match, but that's another matter.

The text as it is is a little too worshipful of British/logical style. One statement seemed to say that it wasn't actually British (whoever put it there probably meant to say that it's required in all Wikipedia articles, not just British English Wikipedia articles). Also, the claim that this rule is here because of the principal of minimal change is not only not helpful to the reader but untrue. Our last major RfC on the subject, despite the extreme bias of the wording, showed that most proponents of WP:LQ just like that system best, in most cases because it appeals to their sense of logic. That's not bad but that's not minimal change. (It's not the reason this rule was inserted in the first place either: The original reasoning was a splitting of the difference between American and British punctuation, with British comma/period placement and "American" double quotes. This was in turn based on the belief that British requires single quotes in all cases--it doesn't.)

I've cleaned the passage up some, but we should do more. The concept of "logical sense" is too subjective. Even the expression "placement according to sense" will be unfamiliar to most Wikieditors. Our discussions on this matter have shown that not everyone comes to the same conclusion about what is and isn't literally logical in punctuation. We should spell out what the editor is expected to do and save the theorizing for the article space where it can be sourced properly.

Why not just copy something directly out of a British style guide, modifying any terminology that would be unfamiliar to our users? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing if "minimal change" is going to be removed from the wording—I think that's the most concices and helpful rationale to give. If that's not the rationale !voters explicitly stated in the last RfC, then perhaps we need a new one to confirm what editors think about that wording—I doubt many would raise any kind of objection to it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the rules in the MoS don't have rationales given for them, so why give one for LQ?

I'm objecting to this text for two reasons. 1. This rule isn't here because of minimal change; it's here because it's popular. 2. Stating that this rule is here because of minimal change implies that British/logical style is associated with fewer errors than American style, and no one has ever found even one error or other problem on Wikipedia that can be attributed to the use of American punctuation (which is relatively common despite the ban). If we're going to say, "We require British/L style because of accuracy and error prevention" then someone should have to point out some non-hypothetical, non-imaginary case of error or inaccuracy.

Things like the differences between British and American styles--whether it's their history or their effects--are better addressed in the article space where sources can be provided. And if a statement as bold and loaded as "British/logical style is more consistent with the principal of minimal change than American style is" is going to be on Wikipedia, then it should be sourced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think today's changes were made in good faith, and I understand it's tricky, but it's much less readable at this point. I think the number of compound and overlong sentences has increased. Compare the readability with this. Now it has strange repetitions from so many incremental changes. The first sentence has an A and a B, and then later in the paragraph the whole concept is repeated with an A, B, and C! Too much. What do people think of this:

On Wikipedia, punctuation marks are placed outside of quotation marks when the quoted material is seen as a discrete phrase or incomplete sentence. When the quoted material is considered a grammatically complete sentence then the material's original punctuation is preserved, and placed inside quotation marks. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is required for all articles on Wikipedia regardless of the variety of English in which they are otherwise written. Logical quotation does not require the placing of final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time, but rather it encourages editors to maintain the punctuation's absence or original position in the quoted text.

Thoughts? __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is a little too esoteric but the rest is good.

Concerns: 1. "Punctuation" is too broad of a word. This rule is about periods and commas. There's less of an issue with exclamation points and question marks. Semicolons and colons are supposed to be placed outside the quotation marks every time. We're certainly not talking about parentheses or dashes, slash marks, brackets or other forms of punctuation. 2. The imperative mood is more appropriate here. We are telling people what to do, not describing what happens (to be extremely literal, punctuation marks are not always placed that way on Wikipedia). 3. And we should definitely keep the link to the punctuation section of the quotation mark article in there somewhere. 4. What else? I'd put a "from" after "absence." Otherwise it looks like "absence in."

Consider On Wikipedia, place periods and commas outside of quotation marks when quoting a discrete phrase or sentence fragment. Place them inside when quoting a grammatically complete sentence. This practice is...

If we're going to give the name of the practice, we should include the one by which it is most commonly known. It is called "British" more often than it is called "logical" by what feels like two to one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, place punctuation marks outside of quotation marks when the quoted material is seen as a discrete phrase or incomplete sentence. When the quoted material is considered a grammatically complete sentence, place the material's original punctuation inside quotation marks. This practice is referred to as logical quotation or British style quotation. It is required for all articles on Wikipedia regardless of the variety of English in which they are otherwise written. Logical quotation does not require the placing of final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time, but rather it encourages editors to maintain the absence or original position of punctuation in the original text.

Honestly, I think we should let an article explain that logical punctuation is also called British. Having the mention of the "British" name just seems to confuse people about which articles it's in effect for. You are correct about the imperative. Thanks for that. I stuck with "punctuation" because it's true for all punctuation, even though you are correct that is predominantly periods and commas, and laundry-listing them muddles the readability. An example, if the quoted material is a full sentence ending in a question mark, then it's included inside the quotation marks. We don't want anyone saying it doesn't cover question marks. I left the "seen" and "considered" in because LQ requires case-by-case judgement. It's better to say something like "considered a grammatically complete sentence" rather than just say "sentence" which doesn't cover all of the cases. I moved the absence bit.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Then why state either of the practice's names? Maybe it shouldn't be, but this is a hot-button issue here on the MoS, with accusations of inappropriate framing on both sides. We should either follow the sources (which certainly use both names enough, even if they use B more than L), or leave the entire matter to the article space. However, if we do mention both names, "British" should be stated first because it is the primary name. If we mention only one name, it should not be the one that is less common.

Actually, it is not true of all punctuation. Colons and semicolons are supposed to be outside quotation marks. This is the case in both British and American English, though APA seems divided on the matter. Here's a two-minute source job: [4] [5] [6]

The "seen as" and "considered" leave the reader to wonder "seen by whom?" and "considered by whom?" Can we make that less vague? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried that people won't know who does the considering, as the examples spell it out with Judgment is required whenever.... My general opinion is that it would probably work out better for Wikipedia, being international, to go with the name not connected to a single country. Pushing the British name just seems to be asking for more "But I'm an editor who's not British so that doesn't apply to me fooferall". It's WP:LQ, it's not an article, and we're not the only ones to call it LQ. The punctuation wording as it is, still ensures that incomplete phrases won't force commas and semicolons inside quotation marks.__ E L A Q U E A T E 07:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's getting there, Elaqueate. I wonder if this might help: "When the quoted material is considered a grammatically complete sentence in its own right, …" In the discussion above, I'd made a point of referring to quoted material "constituting a complete sentence"; we needn't follow that, of course, but I just wonder whether the addition of "in its own right" in your suggestion wouldn't clarify the situation beyond any doubt.

As you say, it's tricky: the fourth sentence (Logical quotation does not require the placing of final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time, but rather …) does end up being slightly redundant once we've read the opening two sentences, do you not think?

Good though, all in all. And I agree we'd best run through possibilities here before committing on the page. JG66 (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The examples below it make it clear with Judgment is required whenever... that includes the constituted sentence phrasing and further nuance. I was thinking of "in its own right" but I worried that it was too much of an idiom and might cause squabbles over its interpretation. It makes sense, but the sentence can get unwieldy if we add multiple phrases to tease out meanings, when that's better left to the examples below it. The first part of the fourth sentence is almost but not quite redundant, but I think it makes a nice summation of what comes before it, and it was nice that the other sentences only make it seem more clear, rather than contradictory or incomprehensible.__ E L A Q U E A T E 07:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I liked "constitutes" and agree with DF24 about the problem with "seen as" and "considered". Alternatively, would something like "is presented as a sentence in its own right" more clearly address situations where there's something like Curly Turkey's that-clause? --Stfg (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "is presented as a sentence in its own right" is pretty my own approach to it, at any rate. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If using the name "British" is pushing, then why push the claim that the practice is logical? That's just as loaded. The MoS is not the place to revise the English language. It's only a place to tell Wikieditors what is expected of them. Preferring a secondary name to a primary one isn't passively following the sources; it's a statement. If you think "British" would cause problems, then we should say "This practice has various names" with a link to the article, and let any claims about its national origin or logic be made there.

How about "could be a sentence on its own" or "could be a sentence in its own right"? I do like the words "grammatically complete," though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: you and I agree that the MOS should not be recommending the use of LQ in ENGVARs where style guides overwhelmingly reject it, but we lost that one. Calling it "British" here, however accurate, will just confuse editors.

The problem with "presented as/could be a sentence in its own right" is that it allows fragments of the original which are misleading out of context, but form a sentence in their own right, to have a full stop inside the quotation marks as if the sentence were essentially complete as quoted. The key issues for me are:

As SMcCandlish noted, punctuation inside quotation marks should always be present in the original: no punctuation should be added inside quotation marks which was not there already, which is why I don't like Tony1's example where a comma is placed inside the quote marks.
The main issue here is when to omit full stops that immediately follow the quoted text in the original. The simplest advice we could give (advice that editors have a chance of being able to follow), is to say that it should only be included when the full sentence is quoted. This may or may not be what style guides advocating LQ say, but there's too much over-complex "guidance" in the MOS (e.g. hyphens versus en-dashes).

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter, I did say "where a sentence that ends with a period" (meaning not a part-sentence, but a sentence). Tony (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that keeping or discarding WP:LQ is a separate issue, but if we're not using the primary name then we shouldn't use the secondary name either. A link to the article will provide the practice's name, history and difference from other practices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Logical and British (or Oxford) quotation styles are not identical. Stop beating that dead horse, please. British isn't any name for LQ much less the "primary" one, any more than "American quotation" is properly a name for typesetter's quotation. See argument to emotion, of which this labeling things with inaccurate nationalistic names is an obvious (and common) variant. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

SmC, I have shown you source after source showing that this practice is indeed British and that "American" and "British" are the proper names for these practices. I'd link to them again if I thought you'd bother to read them. Show me one that supports your argument that they are not the proper names for these practices. But then I've asked you to do that before. EDIT: Oh, found a new one while looking for sources. [7]Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Right back atcha. The archives on this perennial discussion have this covered many times over. I decline to re-dig up material others have posted before repeatedly. And it doesn't matter anyway: WP's MOS is not an article and this is not an RS debate; MOS is based on a consensus about what is best for our readers (and to a lesser extent, editors), and while it takes into account what various external style sources recommend, it is free to dispense with them (where they don't conflict anyway) where those recommendations don't suit our purposes. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register#Punctuation inside or outside and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation. I decline to spend minutes much less hours digging through that material for you. Your refusal to believe isn't magically an obligation on anyone else's part to do any work to convince you, especially when that work has already been done and we're all sure you've seen it before more than once. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of this back-and-forth about recasting this section of MOS is missing the point. LQ is very simple: Was the punctuation in the original? No: Don't put it in the quotation marks. Yes: Is it helpful to the reader (regardless of how you or the subject might arrange quotation marks in a piece of journalism or fiction) to include that punctuation inside the quotation marks? No: Then don't. Yes: Do so, with the understanding that later editors might disagree it's helpful and remove it. The end.

LQ is about and only about not adding false material to quotations; it has nothing to do with (and no practical quotation system is ever going to guard against) quoting out of context; that's a matter of editorial discretion and source verification, not punctuation. If the wording needs clarification it should simply be to make clear the above nested if-then flow, and nothing more. Why would MOS have any reason to tell editors always to include terminal punctuation inside quotations or never do so unless they're full sentences, or whatever? It's not an LQ matter and it doesn't seem to be a burning editorial dispute issue that MOS needs to settle. E.g. If Sam's (complete) statement was "Chris went to the store.", there is no particular reason to quote this as "Sam said 'Chris went to the store'." vs. "Sam said 'Chris went to the store.'" LQ doesn't care, even if it's "Sam said of Chris that he 'went to the store'." vs. "Sam said of Chris that he 'went to the store.'" (not quoting full sentence). That last case seems to be what people care about most here, but why? The period/stop was part of the original quotation and it perfectly serves its function in both the quotation and the larger sentence containing the quotation, but also works just fine outside the quotation, so it doesn't matter. Including it is a tiny bit more accurate, but in a way that has no actual significance in this case. If it did matter, in a different case, editorial discretion would say to include it. That's a case-by-case judgement call, not an MOS rule. LQ does care that you do not write "Sam said 'Chris went to the store,' but did not indicate when.", because the wrongly inserted comma implies that Sam's statement about Chris is only partial. We can't guarantee that a quote isn't partial without looking at the source, but we should not willfully falsely convey that it's partial (nor, by inserting false periods/stops, wrongly imply that a partial quotation did not actually continue). A desire to have MOS declare when and when not to include final punctuation, that is not essential, simply because it was present is not really an LQ discussion at all. LQ allows that, but does not require it (unless, again, it actually is essential, e.g. a quotation mark vs. a period/stop).

It's very interesting that many of the changes proposed here would do little but make LQ seem (incorrectly) to be the same as Oxford style, and thus seem more like an imposition of a Briticism in violation of ENGVAR (which LQ is not), and thus make it easier to attack LQ in an attempt to remove it from MOS later. LQ is said to be "confusing" by hardly anyone ever in the course of actual editing (vs. arguing about style matters here). Some don't agree with or prefer LQ, but I'm skeptical that many actually have any genuine trouble understanding it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, SmC, MoS:LQ does violate ENGVAR. Regardless of whether you think LQ is British or not, it requires a punctuation practice that is expressly contradicts the rules of correct American English. Of the spellings "analyse" and "anallyze," the first is considered correct in British English, but both are still considered wrong in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

See prescriptive grammar and linguistic descrioption; there is no such thing as "correct American English". "Analiyze" isn't a word, so whatever point you're trying to make it's not working, especially since all American dictionaries other than the most compressed and abridged ones will in fact list "analyse" along with "analyze" (usually as "chiefly British"). Next, ENGVAR (which is not a policy, it's another small part of MOS that we balance against all other concerns) is not about slavishly following whatever the most common usage is in any particular dialect or idiom at any given time, it's about putting a stop to conflicts between American vs. British (or even Australian vs. Canadian, for that matter, but I think we all know this is almost always a UK vs. US problem) in editwars over spelling and style. MOS is not here to authorize people to write in whatever colloquial style they prefer (note our lack of articles written in Jamaican Patwah, which is in fact a national variety of English), it's a) to help readers by establishing consistent writing practices here, b) to stop editorial conflicts, and c) to give editors a clear set of rules to follow, in that order. Making extremist prescriptive grammarians happy is not among those goals. Because LQ is not British and TQ is not American. The more common style in the US and Canada and a few other places like the Philippines is TQ, but not for works where precision is required. The more common usage in most other countries is something similar to LQ, but not exactly LQ. Calling it "British style" is wrong; it's neither limited to the UK nor universal within it. Reglardless, identifying it with LQ is wrong again on top of that. Just because a badger has teeth and claws does not make it a dog, and just because some badgers live in Texas does not make all badgers Texan dogs. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If there were no such thing as correct or incorrect English, then students wouldn't need to learn it in school, there would be no such thing as style guides, we wouldn't bother having an MoS, and the whole act of communicating through writing would be much more difficult. The point that I'm trying to make is that yes, WP:LQ does require Wikieditors break the rules of American English, to punctuate the articles incorrectly, regardless of whether you prefer to think of LQ as British or not. In American English, leaving periods and commas outside the quotation marks is wrong, just like spelling "analyze" with two Ls or with an S is wrong.

I agree that the MoS is not here to let people do whatever they want, but it is even worse to use it to push whims and personal preferences on the whole community. Unlike the case with single vs. double quotation marks, no one has ever shown that American punctuation causes any type of problem on Wikipedia--there's no non-hypothetical reason for the ban.

No, calling these practices "British style" and "American style" is not wrong. These are the names used in most of the sources upon which this MoS is presumably based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I get your point, but if we leave the door open for editors to dispute the inclusion – inside quotation marks – of periods at the end of complete sentences that are quotes then we are doing editors a disservice and not really solving anything.

If we stress your above explanation, then both of these examples are correct:

Arthur said, "the situation is deplorable and unacceptable."
Arthur said, "the situation is deplorable and unacceptable".

Except that at any time, the first example can be challenged as "unhelpful", creating fodder for time-wasting content disputes. So, its correct for only as long as nobody disagrees with the period's inclusion inside the quotation marks, which seems like a dangerous way to write the MoS, particularly when you consider the project's minority population of pedantic edit warriors, who live for this kind of vague stuff to argue about.

Consider also that the first example is correct until its disputed and changed, but what happens when another editor arrives at the page and notices that the period was in the source, and as such reverts back to the first example before it was challenged? Guidelines should solve disputes, not generate them.

So, if your interpretation of LQ is the definitive one, there is no right or wrong answer regarding the above example, a condition that creates a confusing and unhelpful guideline; thus encouraging the perennial rehash. Maybe the community consensus is in favour of a hybrid LQ-Oxford style guideline that is slightly more prescriptive and significantly less subjective and open to interpretation. Otherwise, I'm not at all sure why we bother with LQ, when we could just as easily drop the whole contentious guideline and simply ask editors to place all terminal punctuation outside ending quotation marks; thus ending this years-long debate by accomplishing a simplicity and consistency that is less likely to fuel repeated pedantic disputes. Is this about writing a clear and concise guideline for the community, or slavishly preserving a system that is obviously fraught with implementation difficulties. If this really were that easy for the community then we wouldn't still be debating this year after year after year after ... GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That would actually be preferable to falsely declaring this an ENGVAR matter and allowing a proliferation of inconsistent usage, based on false claims of what is "standard" in "my" English (which will just be whatever the editor prefers, backed up misleadingly with cherry-picked sources that seem to confirm their preference). However, the idea that LQ is controversial is an illusion. It's simply detested by a small cadre of editors who will not drop the issue and keep bringing it up again and again and again. It also comes up naturally and more neutrally when new (usually North American) editors ask why this style is used, get their answer, and then don't fuss about it. We know that the vast majority of WP editors are in fact Americans. if LQ were a real problem for even a slightly statistically significant percentage of them it never would have become the consensus practice here, and even if it had it would have been undone immediately, because WT:MOS would consist of little but constant complaints every single day, all day, about LQ. It's not happening, ergo there is no real problem. WHat's really happening is the same die-hards re-raise the issue a couple of times per year hoping that the audience has changed enough that they'll get their way this time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, does this edit resolve some of your concerns? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically, yes, it does. But I think the entire passage now [as of that edit] has a lot of redundancy, and thus can be considerably shortened, but the facts seem right (with, as noted below, removal of the misidentification of LQ as "British"). I am not at home looking at this at my leisure, and thus have not read the new "Arb break" subtopic material below in full, just the end of it with the trio of examples. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit inserted the "British" terminology. There is no consensus for that, and I have removed it (but not reverted the whole edit). --Stfg (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Like. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good edit, Stfg; MOS is being insufficiently monitored if such an edit is allowed to slip through. User:Darkfrog has a history—here and elsewhere on the internet—of pushing a nationalistic language line WRT this matter. She needs to take a step back. Now, I'll just add that some newspapers and some other publications in the UK, Ireland, Australia, and NZ, do not use LQ (or use a weird version of it). It is not helpful to label LQ in nationalistic terms. Tony (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Arb break

I would like to replace the first sentence with the following.

On Wikipedia, place punctuation marks outside of quotation marks when the quoted material is seen as a discrete phrase or incomplete sentence. When the quoted material is considered a grammatically complete sentence, place the material's original punctuation inside quotation marks. This practice is...

As it stands, the first sentence is more concerned with telling people what not to do in abstract situations, rather than directly advising what they should do. I think it's currently too "Wear a raincoat only on the days it's not sunny and never on days where you don't leave the house." rather than "Wear a raincoat when it rains. Don't wear a raincoat when it's not raining." There have been a lot of bold changes, but this is devolving into arguments about theoretical wording, without clear suggestions of actual wording.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you Wikify "is seen as a discrete phrase or incomplete sentence" so that its more clear? How about "does not constitute a complete sentence"? I think we should avoid phases such as "is seen as" and "is considered", not just because its the passive voice, which doesn't help, but because it leaves so much room for ambiguity, as if grammar is a matter of an individual's perception, versus straightforward criteria. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It is usually preferable to be positive than negative when giving guidance. That's what I hope to correct. LQ does require some judgement and appraisal, so people are making a consideration of what a sentence is. But I can try your suggestions to see how it works....

On Wikipedia, place punctuation marks outside of quotation marks when the quoted material is not a complete sentence. When the quoted material is considered a grammatically complete sentence, place the material's original punctuation inside quotation marks. This practice is...

How's that?__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, your version makes it sound as if all original punctuation is omitted when quoting incomplete sentences, which is not accurate to LQ. E.g. John told everyone in the band to immediately stop acting "selfish, immature, and foolish", which they did. The quoted text is an incomplete sentence, but we don't omit the original punctuation, nor can we place it outside quotation marks. The first sentence is general, and it applies to all punctuation, whereas your suggested version applies only to terminal punctuation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how's this:

On Wikipedia, place any terminal punctuation marks outside of quotation marks when the quoted material is not a complete sentence. When the quoted material is considered a grammatically complete sentence, place the material's original punctuation inside quotation marks. This practice is...

____ E L A Q U E A T E 21:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's much better. I tweaked it slightly, but is this acceptable? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

For the first sentence I have to admit I think you were right to suggest "not a complete sentence" instead of "an incomplete sentence". A quoted name or technical term is not an "incomplete sentence", but it would fall under "not a complete sentence". __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Another quibble is that the phrase "does not constitute" is directly equivalent to the plainer "is not". I think it makes it sound a bit officious and technical, on a page that already has a lot of that. It's a nice word, but I might advise changing it to help arrest sentence bloat. I like how you incorporated other parts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you might be right about that, but I know Stfg likes it. Maybe we should let it gestate and see if it sticks. I agree that might be overly technical, but that seems appropriate here because its referring to "quoted material", which feels plural to me. The level of minutia that we are trying to disambiguate with relatively few words makes for some interesting challenges. I'll try to think of an alternative. Nice work with the first sentence. If readers stop there they will still get a good idea of what LQ means. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If it's a synonymous word choice, then it's just becomes a question of style. As long as you're happy with the core meaning, it's probably fine either way. Keep it in mind if the paragraph starts bloating later or if the main verb of the sentence starts getting lost. Thanks for the words.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

While all of you have been putting quite a bit of effort in here, it appears that you have gone to significant effort to avoid "do not" statement. You have also subordinated the primary point (don't add/change punctuation within the quote) in preference of the "complete sentence" issue. This makes it less clear to an average reader.

I have not refined specific wording, but something to the effect of:

Other than adding ellipses, do not add, remove or change punctuation marks within quoted material.
If there is punctuation in the original at the end of the text being quoted (terminal punctuation) it may be included in the quote, or not, based on editorial judgement. Include the original terminal punctuation within the quotes if it makes logical sense, is grammatically correct with the text surrounding the quoted material and the quoted text constitutes a complete sentence. If the original terminal punctuation is not included within the quotes, place any terminal punctuation outside of the quotes. For a single piece of quoted material, do not place terminal punctuation both inside and outside the quote marks. This style of quoting is commonly called logical quotation.

Then the examples. — Makyen (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. How's this? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, and it continues to improve. — Makyen (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should treat anything that is punctuated as a complete sentence in the original as a sentence, regardless of grammar. A bit picky of me, maybe (would be an example of that).

Also think the formulation is not quite clear on what to do where you leave a clause off the end of a sentence, so that what you are quoting both is and isn't a complete sentence, depending on how you look at it.

I can see from the above that some editors think

Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up".

would be correct. But I think the choices are:

Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up."

Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up..."

Formerip (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: For those unfamiliar with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, the passage in question runs, in full: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" I.e., the snippet quoted above in the examples is incomplete. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain everyone here would agree that your third example is at least acceptable (it would be my preferred one), and that the second is unacceptable under LQ. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The first is correct, though could mislead, and so should be avoided in cases where it might. There's nothing wrong with the construction in and of itself: When King said "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up", he was not talking about an armed insurrection, and made it clear in the rest of that passage that he was talking about societal change. Nothing problematic about that example at all. But this one is definitely problematic: King simply said 'I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up". – that's basically a blatantly lie-by-omission at best. But it's not the formatting that makes it intellectually dishonest, it's the implication by "simply said" that the quotation is complete and King did not continue or elaborate; the punctuation just helps to pull it off.

The second case is flat wrong; it's a blatant falsification of the quotation, and a great example of why LQ is necessary.

The third example is also correct (well, after insertion of a space between "up" and "..."), but we needn't use the diaeresis unless it's important to do so in the context; e.g. if we simply state Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up" as if the statement were complete, then we'd need it, not simply a period/stop.

This is a close cousin of the debate about whether to include square brackets around all changes, including insertion of the diaeresis itself. There is a school of thought on this that Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up [...]". is the only correct example here, but we don't go that far. I wouldn't necessarily object if we did, but it's not really an LQ matter either; it's a different precision question, like the one about including or not including the terminal punctuation that is present. LQ is really just about not falsely including extraneous punctuation, even if we're going to try to address more than that in this section of MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a suspicion (although I acknowledge the possibility that it may be me who is in error) that you are labouring under the false idea that what is important is the punctuation of the quoted text. I don't think that's the case. I think logical quotation doesn't look behind the written copy. On this view, the full-stop should be inside the quotation mark if it marks the end of a syntactical sentence. It doesn't really matter if it is the end of the sentence in the original or if it is the end of the thought expressed. The position of a full-stop is only really an accident after all, in terms of the overall train of thought. Since we are talking about a speech, I can easily pretend that the correct transcription is "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up. And live...", thereby evading the issue altogether. I think it's really about syntax, not about fairly representing the source.

But, like I said, I may be mistaken. Are you able to point me to anything that shows I am wrong? Formerip (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I"m honestly not sure I even follow the argument. Your rewrite of King creates a sentence fragment, and he was rather literate, so I don't think your rewrite can legitimately reflect King's speech. Even if it weren't a grammatical problem it would be a WP:NOR issue, because there are many reliable sources transcribing the speech as we've quoted it above, but not your way. If you think that I think it's the punctuation, per se, that is important, then you're not following me, either. In the narrow LQ debate, the accuracy of quotation is what is important, and that includes its punctuation incidentally. In the wider "what should this whole section recommend?" discussion, the meaning conveyed to readers is what is important. Neither of these concerns necessarily suggest, as you do, that the period/stop should be inside the quotation mark if it marks the end of {Wikipedia, not quoted) syntactical sentence; I and others have already illustrated cases where we should not do this because it falsely inserts punctuation into quoted material and false implies that the quoted passaged ended where we inserted that punctuation. So, as I've said now three or four time, yes, there is a syntactical argument being made here, but it is not really about LQ, it's an add-on to the LQ issue. GabeMc (I think) suggests above that we're really talking about some combination of LQ proper and borrowing something perhaps from mainstream British usage, just to settle on something. That does seem to be an accurate descrption of what's going on here. Your syntactical and speech-related argument addresses that non-LQ part, while skipping what LQ is about entirely, which very definitely is about accurately representing the source. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that editors may be innovating with regards to style and calling it "logical quotation". I don't believe logical quotation would ever allow you to end a sentence by quoting something that is a complete grammatical sentence and placing the full-stop outside the quote mark. The point being that "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up..." is a complete grammatical sentence. Whether it is the whole of the sentence in the original or not is unimportant with regards to the placing of the full-stop (if you want the reader to know that there is more that follows, use an ellipsis).

I am more that happy to be shown to be wrong, though. Are you able to point me to evidence of this? For example, a style guide that outlines the rule or a reputable publication that applies it? Formerip (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP, since the full King quote is I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.", I agree that it would be correct for us to write: Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up …"

I also agree that there's a degree of innovation being applied now regarding what is or isn't LQ, or there appears to be. "Much of this back-and-forth about recasting this section of MOS is missing the point. LQ is very simple: Was the punctuation in the original? No: Don't put it in the quotation marks. Yes: Is it helpful to the reader (regardless of how you or the subject might arrange quotation marks in a piece of journalism or fiction) to include that punctuation inside the quotation marks? No: Then don't. Yes: Do so, with the understanding that later editors might disagree it's helpful and remove it. The end."

Specifically, "Yes [the punctuation is in the original]: Is it helpful to the reader ... to include that punctuation inside the quotation marks? No: Then don't." – where's a source to support that statement? SMcCandlish, you seem to be impatient over this whole issue, this "perennial rehash". The fact is, the wording (as it was) has continued to cause confusion among editors on this encyclopaedia. Stfg has mentioned that he's seen users misapply the guideline, and I recognise other names here from article talk-page discussions on the issue. I'd never have raised the matter at all unless it merited some attention. JG66 (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What this whole line of thinking seems to be forgetting is:

Did Jane say, "let's go to the beach today"?

--Stfg (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but are we ever going to ask a question about what somebody said in Wikipedia's voice? Formerip (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We aren't, as editors writing WP itself, but we may be quoting someone asking a question, in a audio-visual source, about someone else's statement, so the case has to be accounted for. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We should lose the term "logical sense." Our repeated disputes around this rule have shown that not everyone has the same idea of what that means. The term "grammatical sense" is more neutral, but it still presupposes that all Wikieditors think the same way. Even this conversation shows that people have different ideas about what makes the most sense. We should just tell people what we want them to do.

The section is starting to look like we're just making things up. We shouldn't invent new English rules for Wikipedia. We should conform to those that already exist.

We could benefit from consulting a reliable style guide. I have some with me but they're all American and do not discuss the practice in question. The online preview to the New Oxford Guide cuts out in the middle of a section that might be relevant, but the examples that they use are neat and professional, and they're just the sort that STFG has raised: [8] Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a big non sequitur; nothing Stfg or I were talking about here had anything to do with "logical sense". To address your post anyway:

All manuals of style devise rules that suit their needs. That's the exact purpose of manuals of style. This is not an article; while WP:MOS reflects, where practical, what other style manuals are doing, they all conflict with each other in innumerable ways, and MOS picks whatever works best for WP, not what is most popular, or most insisted upon by arrogant blow-hards with degrees, or most hip, or most traditional, or anything other than what serves our needs best. If that happens to agree with some external style manuals, that's great. If it agrees with a majority of them, that's probably even better. But a head-count of how many style guides we're agreeing with is neither a goal nor part of the process. MOS, like all style manuals, is prescriptive by nature: "do this, not that or that". I'm not trying to pick on you, Darkfrog24, but you have a sense of grammatical prescription vs. linguistic description that is completely backward. You're insisting that some made-up rules in some rule books that you happen to like "are" "proper" and "correct" with regard to real world language use, when even a first-year linguistics student knows that's absurd; Meanwhile, you think that the one case where linguistic prescription (as a practice not a philosophy) is actually necessary – the writing of a style guide to which a group of writers/editors are to conform for consistency within a publishing operation – should instead be descriptive. It's 180-degrees unworkable.

That said, I agree that the term "logical sense" is weird and should be replaced.

However, your complaint about how poor this section is becoming is ironic, because its current palimpsestuous messiness and unclarity are largely the result of you and a handful of others who will not let this LQ debate alone, resulting in continued futzing with the text there, largely to assuage highly questionable "it's confusing!" concerns that seem increasingly disingenuous. I've been around here over 8 years, and LQ predates me on WP. Tens of thousands of active editors over the last decade+ have had no issue with LQ, while those who've raised a fuss about it can probably be counted on two hands. I repeat that the main result (whatever the actual intent may have been) of dredging up this perennial debate for the umpteenth time has been to weaken the passage with confused and confusing edits and counter-edits, with the result that it looks more easily attackable. Should consensus not soon emerge on language that actually makes sense and doesn't surreptitiously try to change consensus without consensus clearly having actually changed, the clear solution is to revert to what the section said before this debate was re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-opened. Again, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register#Punctuation inside or outside and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation for just how many times consensus has not changed on this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I brought up "logical sense" because the words "logical sense" were in the passage under discussion, not because I believed that you guys had been talking about it just now. If the point of this section is to prevent fights and confusion, then less subjective terminology is probably a good idea.

The purpose of a manual of style is not to make up rules about whatever its writers think looks cool or even what they think looks logical. I might think that spelling "freight" as "frayt" is logical, but I'd be wrong and my writing would be hard to read and make a poor impression on my reader. That's why good manuals of style conform to the language's existing standards. We want Wikipedia to look correct and professional so that readers will have a sense of confidence in its contents. In this case, that means providing instruction on correct punctuation, on getting it right. Wikieditors aren't allowed to put whatever they think sounds cool in the article space; they have to provide sources. The MoS should be held to at least that standard of verifiability.

I do not share your beliefs about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. Regardless of whether outside style guides are describing the results of studies and surveys or telling their readers what to do, they reflect the current state of correct usage and whatever-we-feel-like does not. We're not allowed to perform original research in the article space; don't WP:SYNTH any positions here. As for why the LQ debate keeps coming up, it's probably less because of me and more because of sources like CMoS, the APA, AMA, MLA... As long as the MoS contradicts what people learn in school, read in style guides and see in the quality published sources, people are going to show up and point it out as a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

^This. Formerip (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If every editor naturally agreed on a single style throughout the world (even throughout a nation), then we could dispense with a MOS completely. Sources say people disagree or that some solutions to common problems are equivalent. The MOS is always going to disagree with what some of the people "learned in school" (what school? when?). I think reverting the longstanding references to "Logical Quotation" is misguided. Putting the word "grammatical" throughout is incorrect as well. Punctuation style is not a grammatical consideration. "Grammatical" is a useful word when talking about whether a group of words form a sentence (e.g. "grammatically complete sentence") but it is not accurate when describing a punctuation preference.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I will also add that the last RFC closed as a consensus to Continue to recommend LQ exclusively. I find an attempt to remove all explicit references to "Logical Quotation" distinctly on the disruptive side. The consensus is to recommend logical quotation, and to do it exclusively. We can't change the wording to do an end run around the RFC. Don't erase language recommending logical quotation.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The last RfC, which had extremely biased wording, did show a clear majority of participants in favor of keeping the ban on American punctuation in place in favor of British style exclusively. In the discussion preceding it, an overwhelming majority of the sources indicated that the national divide on this issue is real and that leaving periods and commas untucked is incorrect in American English. That is why this issue keeps coming up: because those two things don't match.

Right now we're not talking about whether to scrap WP:LQ. We're talking about how to phrase WP:LQ. There are plenty of reliable sources on this. Some of these sources call this system British and some call it logical. That's where we should go for answers to "Can the period go inside in this case?" and "What if the comma is present in the source?" Not our own feelings and preferences.

It's no secret that I prefer American style, but the British/logical system certainly works. We should present it to our readers well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Constitutes a sentence"

Opening up a new section here because I don't want to drown in the philibuster above. I still have issues with "constitutes a complete sentence"-like wording. Let's take two quotations from the famous guitaist Harry Spaz:

I think it was pretty deplorable, you see.
It's becasue it wasn't the right thing to do.

Now, an editor includes them both in the article:

Spaz expressed his dismay at the situation, saying "it was pretty deplorable". ... When asked to elaborate, Spaz stated "it wasn't the right thing to do."

In both cases, "it was pretty deplorable" and "it wasn't the right thing to do" are complete sentences (and this can be interpreted as "constituting a sentence"). In the first, placing a period inside is obviously wrong, as it wasn't there in the sentence the quote was lifted from. In the second, the period was in the original, and the quoted fragment can be a complete sentence, so it can be argued that the period goes inside the quotemarks. What we end up with, then, is an article with two similarly-structured sentences, one of which has the period inside and the other outside the quotemarks. To most readers—even careful ones—this simply looks like a mistake, and is a likely target for editors to "fix"—either by putting the one period in the quotemarks (violating "minimal change"), or by placing the other one outside. The second case is perfectly fine in and of itself, but the kind of thing that sparks edit wars when the original editor notices that the period (which was in the original, after all) has been removed.

My own solution is to be consistent in putting periods outside the quotes, except when the quote is presented as a sentence (rather than merely "constituting a sentence", logically or otherwise). That leaves the period (or leaders) inside the quotemarks in situations like Spaz said, "I think it was pretty deplorable, you see." while putting them outside in pretty much any other case.

So perhaps "When the quoted material is presented as a complete sentence" would be easier to understand and apply? It would also probably allow simplification of other parts of this section of the MoS, I imagine—fewer edge cases to catch. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing we should be talking about, stuff that has actually caused non-hypothetical problems in the article space. We should be consulting sources for the answers. I agree that "is presented as" and "constituting" are a lot less concrete than something like "could be." I'd like to see a top-notch printed style guide that deals with this issue (regardless of whether they call the system "British" or "logical") but all of mine are American. Online sources, touch on the issue, but it tends to be the printed guides that do the in-depth treatment that we need: [9].

Curly, can you link to any of the edit wars in question? I'm curious as to what exactly they were fighting about.

If I were writing this for a British audience, I'd guess that the right thing to do would be to treat the period like a question mark or exclamation point, in which case it would go outside in both examples, but I'd prefer to see a source that deals with this issue explicitly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, the goal here should be to eliminate ambiguity, which "presented as a sentence" is ripe with, IMO. Its either a complete sentence or it isn't a complete sentence, so I'm not sure why we should imply that a text-string that constitutes a complete sentence must also be "presented as a complete sentence", because we wouldn't add a grammatically incorrect period inside quote marks in the middle of a sentence anyway. 1) Its present in the source material, 2) it makes grammatical sense with the surrounding text, which explicitly precludes adding a period to a text-string that constitutes a complete sentence, but is being quoted mid-sentence. I.e., the presentation bit is taken care of by the "makes grammatical sense with the surrounding text". Also, with all due respect, the idea that "putting them all outside is just easier" contradicts the spirit of LQ and causes confusion amongst editors. That's not LQ; that's a guideline that says place all terminal punctuation outside closing quotation marks, which MOS:LQ explicitly rejects. Its one thing to have a personal preference, but I really wish that you wouldn't present it as a viable alternative to actually following LQ. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

PBS isn't confused by my interpretation there, Gabe, they're confused by LQ in general. Remember, they were aguing that the period should go outside of Holly George-Warren of Rolling Stone commented: "Hendrix pioneered the use of the instrument as an electronic sound source. Players before him had experimented with feedback and distortion, but Hendrix turned those effects and others into a controlled, fluid vocabulary every bit as personal as the blues with which he began." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point, but what if he thinks the terminal punctuation in the last sentence of the quote should be outside? You implied that its a matter of personal taste, versus the rules of proper grammar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

He does think theh period of that last sentence belongs outside the quotemarks. That was the whole issue, wasn't it? There's not a system out there that supports that interpretation, and WP's LQ made it clear that wasn't the case.

I never implied anything to do with "proper grammar"—I stated that when the quoted material is quoted as a "that clause" of a sentence, then I consider the terminal punctuation to belong to the sentence as a whole, which I think is a better approach than putting a period inside when there happens to be a period in the source, and outside when there isn't—the last case is sloppy-looking and a headache to maintain, and the advantages are (to me) dubious at best. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

To intentionally omit an original period – that makes grammatical sense with the surrounding text – from a quoted text string that constitutes a complete sentence is to defy LQ and lie by omission. That is not LQ, that's closer to the so-called American typesetter's style, which the Wikipedia community has repeatedly and resoundingly rejected. I think its fine that you do this and nobody has yet complained, but please reconsider your willingness to encourage editors to follow this practice, as its not in keeping with the broader community consensus and its not at all LQ. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, I'm not following you at all—since when is placing the period outside the quotes anything like typesetter's/American quotes? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, Gabe, using the example:

Spaz expressed his dismay at the situation, saying "it was pretty deplorable". ... When asked to elaborate, Spaz stated "it wasn't the right thing to do."

When an editor comes along and "fixes" the article by placing the second period outside (to be consistent with the style of the first), are you stating the article is now "lying by omission" if nobody happens to realize the original had a period there? That's a problem far too subtle to deal with, I think—I doubt this "lie" would be caught in an FAC (assuming it is, in fact, an issue). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Its a lie by omission because you are intentionally withholding information, specifically that the source text included a full-stop that you removed to satisfy a style preference. That's why its not LQ, because you are omitting punctuation from the quoted text based on style considerations, not grammatical correctness. I'll re-phrase: If you "place all terminal punctuation outside" closing quotation marks – regardless of the context of the quoted material – then it is similar to American type-setter style in that its a general rule that does not require any judgment, as LQ does. Its true that American type-setter style would be to place them all inside to avoid inconsistency, but that you do the opposite is incidental to the fact that a general rule for all quotations is not logical quotation; its reverse American type-setter style. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, it's a "lie by omission" to drop "It's because" from "It's because it wasn't the right thing to do." Why give words a person used less weight than the punctuation? Especially given that if it was from an interview, one transcriber may use a period to terminate the sentence, another an exclamation mark, or even an emdash, none of which was part of the utterance. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If we were truly quoting spoken utterances, then we could punctuate them however we saw fit, but since we are quoting written source material we need to respect the presence or absence of the original punctuation, or its not LQ. If you quoted this sentence: Gabe and Curly edit Wikipedia., but intentionally moved the period to outside the quotation marks to satisfy your stylistic preferences, then you are altering the source material in defiance of LQ. It not a lie by omission to elide, or drop into a quote, though at times taking things out-of-context can create misleading prose, but that's another issue. In short, to omit original punctuation, or move it outside quotations marks when it was present in the source material in an effort to satisfy style concerns is to deny the reader the verification that the quoted sentence ended where it appears to end, and to ignore the basic premise of LQ, which is to maintain the absence or presence in the original. If you were right, then we could write this guideline with three sentences.

1) With the exception of ellipses, editors should never place punctuation marks in quoted text unless it was present in the original. 2) Editors should only maintain original punctuation if it makes grammatical sense. 3) Editors should always place terminal punctuation outside closing quotation marks regardless of its presence in the source material.

Only two of those sentences can be said to accurately reflect LQ. Do you at least agree that no part of LQ officially suggests that editors should always place terminal punctuation outside closing quotation marks? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've admitted that before, in our discussion with PBS. The original wording allowed for "judgement", and I used my judgement to choose based on what, logically, was being punctuated—the sentence or the quotation? The new wording takes away that judgement, enforcing punctuation inside the quotemarks if it simply happened to have been there, and banishing them if not. As I keep saying, this only invites "helpful" editors to "fix" the "problem" when they see an "inconsistency" within an article (and it is, at least superficially, an ugly inconsistecy).

The spirit of LQ (as I've understood it) is to not introduce anything within the quotemarks that wasn't originally there, unless it can't be avoided (as with leaders, or clearly-marked interpolations). As quotes tend to be slices of strings in the first place, I have trouble interpreting the spirit of LQ as requiring explicitly stating what punctuation the author happened to have used—especially when we have to pick and choose: okay, so we have to include the period if the enclosing sentence is also finished, but we must not include the comma if the enclosing sentence is finished, so we put a period outside the quotemarks, and and and ... too many boring edge cases to wrap one's head around, with the reward of an inconsistent-looking article. Who benefits? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"The spirit of LQ (as I've understood it) is to not introduce anything within the quotemarks that wasn't originally there, unless it can't be avoided." I think this is a valid way to look at it. I think the difficulty may arise from seeing this as an immutable principle from which all else flows. Taking the "logical" in "logical quotation" too literally. I think the reality is that there are various rules and conventions which may supervene (I would include these under the heading "Things that can't be avoided"). There may be a general lack of consensus about some of them, and some of them may just be optional. Perhaps trying to identify what those are, and which of them are right for Wikipedia, could be a way forward. Formerip (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing 1/2 of LQ if you say that all it means is that editors should never add punctuation unless its original. There are two things that LQ does, 1) no additive punctuation, and 2) maintenance of original punctuation whenever its helpful to readers and grammatically correct. If you follow, and encourage others to follow, only one of the two you are not using logical quotation. The inclusion of the period in this example is not a matter of editorial discretion, because its helpful to readers and grammatically correct. So why would you remove it if not for a personal style preference? The decision should be based on grammar, not style, or its not LQ. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll meet you only part way. Firstly, I think use of the word "never" in relation to punctuation is problematic. As I just said, there are rules and conventions that will supervene, so there is no "never". This is true to the extent that "no additive punctuation" is not an unbreakable rule of logical quotation. With regard to maintaining existing punctuation, I don't think logical quotation says anything special. You can choose either to maintain the existing punctuation or modify it to match the style that you are using generally. For example, if your quote contains an Oxford comma and your style is not to use one, you can omit it or keep it as you see fit. There is no question of this being a crime. Unless you are quoting from fiction or poetry. I think the bottom line here is that the fact that your style is logical quotation has little bearing on what you should do in that case. This is because your last point is correct: grammar is the guide, not style (although I would add that the two are never seen apart). Formerip (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Curly, I don't necessarily disagree, but are you trying to help us flesh-out an accurate description of LQ, or a guideline that circumvents the spirit of LQ – that is maintaining presence as much as absence – by suggesting that its better to just place all terminal punctuation outside? LQ does not say place them all outside, so I'm not sure why this is even a point of discussion here, or why you mentioned it as if it were a viable option – its not. If I did whatever I wanted on Wikipedia I would probably follow your lead (which will never gain consensus), but that's decidedly not LQ. If I institute whatever system I want, and encourage others to do the same, then I'm not helping articles or editors comply with our MoS, which is disruptive, IMO. If you think that the inconsistency issue makes LQ a bad choice, then by all means make that argument in the right forum. But when you imply that you do whatever you want if it makes sense to you, even though you know its not necessarily LQ compliant, it sends a bad message, and it can be fodder for disputes as it was here. Your personal opinion is irrelevant in a discussion about the proper application of LQ, and it muddies the already dirty water. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

LQ has never in either spirit or letter required the maintenance of the presence of punctuation—if the quoted fragment ends with a comma or semicolon, that punctuation is banished, and there's no argument there. How is it "lying by omission" for periods but not commas?

"Your personal opinion is irrelevant in a discussion about the proper application of LQ": my personal opinion worked out fine under the wording that allowed for "judgement"—now you're altering the wording to take that room for judgement away, and I don't see it improving anything, or any evidence of its legitimacy. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

1. American style is not a lie of omission. In American style, it is understood that the period or comma is part of the quotation process and not necessarily part of what is being quoted. I concur with Curly; these systems permit the omission of actual words, and we don't call that a lie of omission. If it changes the meaning of the quoted material, we call it a misquotation, and if it doesn't, we call it a quotation.

2. You do raise a good point that "just leave it outside in all cases" isn't correct British/logical style. Here's a thought, though. Fowler and Fowler describe this system as "placement according to sense." Why don't we describe the practice using question marks and then just tell the user to treat commas and periods the same way? Again, I'd like to see a style guide address this, but that sounds pretty close to what I've read about this rule.

Did he say I was a "chump"?

He said I was a "chump".

He said, "Do you think I'm a chump?"

He said, "You're a chump."

What do you think? I don't think we should use the expression "placement according to sense" because that's vague/open to interpretation/unfamiliar/blah blah blah but we should explain what we want the users to do. Again, while I'd love it if WP lifted the ban on American style, British/L style is a legit practice and we should instruct our users on it properly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, place terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks if it applies solely to the quoted material and outside if it does not. This is easiest to see with question marks:

[examples]

Apply this rule to periods, commas, question marks and exclamation points. This is required of all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are otherwise written.

It's short, it's clear, it links to the article space, and it's to the point. If anyone feels the need, we can add At the editor's discretion, a period or comma may be placed inside the quotation marks if it was present in the material quoted. but I'm not sure that's proper B/L style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't disagree that a system like that would be easier to implement and explain; I think it would be infinitely easier, but the battle for LQ has been fought and won – or lost depending on which side you take. I find it hard to swallow that editors at AmEng articles are not free to choose, but that's not my battle, nor is there any realistic chance of overturning the existing consensus to force LQ on everybody. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think what Darkfrog24 has suggested is perfectly consistent with logical quotation (except I don't see how the "editor's discretion" bit add's anything more than "or if you prefer, do what I just said"). Can anyone explain why it isn't?

A good example, which underscores what I was saying earlier about "I have a dream..." is how obviously wrong this is:

Karen Carpenter asked: "Why do birds suddenly appear"?

Formerip (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A "... ?" would be legitimate in both LQ and typesetter's. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but this appears to break the golden rule of "no additive punctuation". Also, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to just put the question mark inside the quotes, and I think it demonstrates why

Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up".

is wrong. Formerip (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It neglects the maintenance of grammatical punctuation that is present in the source, but if what DF is suggesting is:

1) With the exception of ellipses, editors should never place punctuation marks inside quotation marks unless it was present in the source material, and 2) Editors should only maintain original punctuation if it makes grammatical sense with the surrounding text.

... then I agree in principle. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, what I'm trying to do is instruct the user on correct British/L style, not invent a new style. That's why I keep citing sources. According to Fowler and Fowler, that's what Wikipedia's required style is. But I freely admit that I could be wrong about what F&F or anyone else is trying to say, which is why I keep asking people to show sources.

As for American editors or any editors at all being free to choose, we're not. I used AmE punct in the article space and got brought up on AN/I for it. MoS:LQ is a rule, not a suggestion, and we have to remember that when we phrase it.

As for the text you've suggested just above, it's so confusing that I'm having trouble telling what you're talking about. "Grammatical sense" is better than "logical sense," but what makes sense won't be the same for everyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fowler says to apply this according to sense; I assume that he means grammatical sense, versus ESP or something. If an editor cannot parse what "grammatical sense" means, then I doubt they will ever understand LQ anyway, but if you look at the first bullet point you'll see that grammatical sense is loosely defined as anything that is both "helpful to readers" and "grammatically correct". I'm not sure how this could be any clearer. What specifically do you think is wrong with the guideline as its currently written? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems we had an edit conflict while I was trying to move my comment so I'll answer here: To someone not familiar with the differences between American and British English punctuation, it will make sense to place the period or comma in a way that looks familiar. To most Americans that will be inside the quotation marks. To many Brits, outside. People who read more books than web articles may also tend to place punctuation inside. "Grammatical sense" will translate to "What my teacher taught me in school; what is correct," and that differs across national varieties of English. Although it is useful here in the discussion section, in the guideline itself, we should forego any kind of field-specific terminology in favor of plain English.

Even Wikieditors who have never seen the expression "grammatical sense" before will understand what is expected of them if the situation is explained clearly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Arb break 2

Whether an utterance "makes grammatical sense with the surrounding text" could mean different things to different people—for instance, as the quoted fragment is (necessarily) taken out of its context, it will not make the same sense as it did in the original context—it's being used as raw material for building a new sentnece in a new context. That's one of many legitimate ways of looking at it, which is why we should leave this to the judgement of editors—and explicitly say that's the case. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that judgment is absolutely inherent in "makes grammatical sense with the surrounding text", because one cannot determine what makes grammatical sense without using judgment – it goes without saying. Kind of like how I don't need to tell you that it requires memory to drive to the library without a map. However, if we go out of our way to say that the proper application of LQ "requires judgment", we are opening the door for PBS-type arguments that it comes down to a matter of individual preference, and each case is determined by how the editor feels about the punctuation. If its original to the source and grammatical with the end product, it should be included, regardless of how each individual editor views its inclusion on any given day. Otherwise, its an anti-guideline that give no direction and fuels conflict. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

PBS wasn't arguing that it had anything to do with judgement—he was arguing that LQ says to put terminating punctuation outside of the quotations, despite the explicit examples given at MOS:LQ to the contrary. The original wording was very explicit about the placement of punctuation in most cases, and covered the corner cases with "judgement", which I think is reasonable. If there's a dispute, the primary editor can cite that they've exercised editorial judgement, just as with choices of wording in the prose. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this diff? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, just rehashing the same arguments that all proposed wordings of LQ have been very explicit about. I gave up responding, since the weight of policy and consensus was clearly against him. Without the bit explicating "judgement is required", it's not in the least obvious that two outcomes could be equally acceptable—which, I think, would only encourage souldraining hairsplitting over where the period "really" belongs. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you are right and the maintenance of original punctuation is not a goal of LQ, then this should be extremely simple to explain and implement.

1) Editors should never add punctuation, with the exception of ellipses, to quoted material – i.e if the punctuation is not present in the source material then it should not be included inside quotation marks. 2) If the inclusion of original punctuation creates an ungrammatical construction with the surrounding prose, omit that original punctuation.

If its really this simple then why have Wikipedians been unable to find an amicable resolution to this years-long dispute? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I've added some material that I think stresses the points that most of us agree on. Let me know what you think of the changes. FTR, the second bullet point covers the issue of judgment, and I think it should remain. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it a years long dispute, or is it just a perennial question? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

Six on one hand? I guess all I meant was, if this is so simple, and we are so capable, then why is there a years-long and on-going disagreement about what LQ suggests? I personally think that the guideline looks quite good right now, but just a few days ago that was not the case. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough—It's been challenged more than once a year for many years, and it has pretty low compliance in the article space. From my perspective, the issue with this rule has never truly been resolved, but right now the rule is in place and we should get it as close to right as possible.

Regarding judgment: Is there a situation in which British/L style allows the Wikieditor to place a period or comma either inside or outside of the quotation marks, solely at his or her own discretion? If the answer to that question is "no," then we should replace "judgment" with another word. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Fowler, writing in the section: Relative placing of quotation marks and punctuation, "If an extract ends with a point, or exclamation or interrogation sign, let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise.(Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd Edition, edited by R.W. Burchfield, 1996. ISBN 978-0-198-61021-2. Pages 646–647) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading "no" on that. So maybe instead of "some judgment is required" we could say something more like "the situation is more complicated."

Regarding the examples, a lot of the text that ends up inside quotation marks on Wikipedia isn't quoted text per se. It's song titles and episode titles and words-as-words. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't view song titles as quotes, they are an exception, IMO. Fowler addresses the situation where judgment is required: (ii)"If the quotation is intermediate between a single word and a complete sentence, or it is not clear whether it is a complete sentence or not, judgment must be used in placing the final point: We need not 'follow a multitude to do evil'. The words quoted are the greater part of a sentence—[Do not] follow a multitude to do evil—but not complete in themselves, so do not require their own closing point; the point therefore belongs to the main sentence , and is outside the quotation marks." Ibid GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

He also says: (iii) "The quoted words may be a complete sentence but the closing point must be omitted because the main sentence is not complete: You say 'It cannot be done': I say it can. Here the colon clearly belongs to the main sentence ... and is therefore outside the quotation marks." Ibid GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Fowler also gives us this example, of a fully quoted sentence that nevertheless has the punctuation outside the quotemarks: Alas, how few of them can say, 'I have striven to my utmost'! This appears to be "according to the sense" of the sentence that begins with "Alas": "... according to whether their application is merely to the words quoted or to the whole sentence of which they form a part." How does Wikipedia handle this? It seems to go an awful lot farther than what I've proposed, and I can see it giving legitimacy to PBS's claims. Fowler seems to advocate a lot more judgement than WP's LQ does (either with the wroding the way it was or with the new, more restrictive wording). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Is there a situation in which British/L style allows the Wikieditor to place a period or comma either inside or outside of the quotation marks, solely at his or her own discretion?" The answer to this is yes. A quote at the end of a sentence which is itself a sentence should have terminal punctuation before the closing quote mark, unless it is a very short quote of minor relative weight. I'm not sure if this is universally applied, but it is certainly widely accepted, and so it ought to be permissible on WP. It means that the following are both correct, even though they may appear inconsistent:

Sandra said, "Shut up."

After I had spoken to her about the details of British punctuation for forty minutes, Sandra finally turned to me, exasperated, and said: "Shut up".

Naturally, deciding when the quoted sentence is minor enough for the full-stop to fall outside the quote mark is a matter of case-to case judgement. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, GabeMc, I do not think the change you link above is an improvement. It simply makes the strictly prohibitive character of the guidance more emphatic. I get that this is your precise intention, but I don't see how it is helpful. I think it's a mistake in the first place for the guidance to be so negatively phrased. We should be advising editors on what to do, not on why they are wrong. That aside, the strengthening to "Never add punctuation marks...", as well as being unhelpful in its prohibitive tone, is plain wrong. We should really be looking at a weakening of the guidance to say something like "Generally...".

The guidance as it now is appears to disallow various things which should obviously be permitted. The current word seems to disallow: silently correcting punctuation, transposing foreign punctuation, punctuating to reflect formatting (I don't think it is acceptable to quote the words at the top-left of this page as "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia"), punctuating to mark out lines of poetry or song lyrics, modifying the text using square brackets, using "[sic]", adding commas to a list taken from a table. There are likely to be others I haven't thought of. At least some of these examples are prescribed by the MoS, so we have a glaring inconsistency. I also think that the general rule that a sentence should be punctuated at its end is capable of trumping any artificial formulation about quotations. That may be contentious, but that doesn't make it wrong. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, FormerIP, it looks as though the period should go inside the quotation marks in both the examples you gave. Are you certain that the second one is correct?

I agree that the "Never" should be replaced with "Do not" and the harsh phrasing should be replaced with neutral phrasing to make the section less like an ad for logical style and more like straight instruction in logical style. I took the liberty of enacting such changes earlier today.

May I add that I love that the section has sources now? A lot of the disputes about this rule have boiled down to, "Well who says I should punctuate this way?" and "Fowler does" is a much better answer than "A bunch of Wikipedians no better or worse than yourself." I find it more honest and less offensive. If the source sections end up getting chopped, we should transfer them to the quotation mark article so that readers can see them through the link. (They're better here, though.) Is there a way to place them under a cut of some kind? Our fellow MoSheads will be less likely to remove them if they're made more unobtrusive.

GabeM, when you say that you see song titles as an exception, what do you mean? Fowler's rules seem to say that punctuation should go outside in their case. Frankly, I see no logical reason why it couldn't go inside, but that's true of all cases. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Shut up" example is in line with what's recommended in the Oxford Guide To English Usage: "...if the quotation is a short statement, and the introducing sentence has much greater weight, the full stop is put outside the quotation marks". I'm not sure that everyone would always follow this, but it must at least be counted as permissible. Formerip (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that providing citations within the guidance is better than not. But it also needs to be kept in mind that we are not in the business of picking our favourite manual and going with that. I think there are problems connected to the negative phrasing. People are not, in fact, going to ask "Well who says I should punctuate this way?", because that doesn't reflect the wording of the guidance. They are going to ask, instead, "Who says I shouldn't punctuate this way?" We ought not to be trying to ban things that are permissible, that's all, at least not without a specific consensus. Leaving aside the question of whether Fowler is being interpreted, we don't have any reason, in the first place to give Fowler the last word.

At the end of the day, guidance which wrongly tells people not to do things and isn't even internally consistent is no good at all. If people choose to ignore it altogether, who can blame them? Formerip (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but it's better to have guidance based on sources than guidance based on personal preferences. If Fowler and Oxford disagree, we should examine both. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be considering different authorities and deciding what is best. That's not what I'm saying. Rather, if any reputable guide to logical-style punctuation says I can do something, then I ought to be allowed to do it on Wikipedia. Unless there is a very good reason I shouldn't and/or a consensus that it is not WP style. There's absolutely no need to try to bolt everything down, particularly because, in trying to do so, we've come up with guidance which is obviously wrong and self-contradictory. Regardless of whether there are citations in place or not, something has obviously gone wrong if the guidance tells users they can't write things like:

"I'll be back," said Arnie.

"Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia"

It seems to be that the guidance has been made restrictive to well beyond a reasonable extent. So restrictive that it seems to compel us to write things that logical quotation doesn't actually allow.

Formerip (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Why are we talking about exclamation marks and question marks? I can't think of article text that contains these types of terminal punctuation in Wikipedia's voice, with or without quoted text in it. This is a MOS for Wikipedia, specific to Wikipedia, not an educational primer on how people can use logical punctuation in all aspects of their life. This seems distractingly tangential and bloaty. 2. If there are going to be notes, they should go below the body of MOS where all the other notes live. If it looks like we're quoting whole sections of another party's style book as a supplement to our own, some might see that as a copyvio problem. Keep in mind, this isn't an article about Fowler that could contain "fair use" quotation, it's a document that seeks to serve a similar purpose as what we're copying from.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP, I personally agree, but that's not how it works. Almost every style guide on American English says I can and should and must use American punctuation, but that doesn't mean much here. If it doesn't get into the MoS, then it's not the rule for Wikipedia--which is why we have to be careful about what we put into the MoS.

Elaqueate, we're talking about exclamation marks and quotation marks because the rules of British/logical placement are a lot easier to see with them than with periods and commas. The terms "grammatical sense" and "logical sense" may be subjective, but if you show someone how placing a question mark can show whether the whole sentence or just quoted material is a question, then you can say, "Okay, now do that with periods and commas," and from what I understand of Fowler, that is placement according to sense.

Yes, this is a rule being worked out for Wikipedia, but that rule should be based on existing English practices, not made up from scratch and whims. At the absolute most, we should choose from among correct practices that already exist, just as we chose sentence case over title case for article-space section headings. Both sentence case and title case are correct, but Wikipedia only allows one of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good argument to include question marks. Please show me an article that uses question marks in Wikipedia's voice. Then find me a single one that also contains a quote. I don't see any reason to exhort editors to be especially careful with question marks if they represent a unicorn of a situation.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been pointed out above that, since editors may have the occasion to transcribe from audio, there is no form of punctuation syntax that we can say will never come up. In any event, I think what Darkfrog is saying is that it can sometimes be a good thought experiment, if you want to work out whether you've got the punctuation right, to think of similar examples with slightly different punctuation, to see if the rule still makes sense. That doesn't mean we need to include those examples in the MoS, but there's nothing wrong with bringing them up on the talkpage. Formerip (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog: WP has developed a consensus against American (conventional) style and in favour of British (logical) style for quotations. That means that any sources offering guidance on American style should be ignored. But the use of any (reputable) guide to logical style should be OK. Or, I don't even need to use a guide. If I accurately model my punctuation on what is done in The Guardian, I should also find that I am OK. The Guardian uses logical style, so I am also using logical style, just as consensus tells me to. If I find people using the MoS as a basis to correct me, then the MoS must be wrong, either because it has been clumsily worded or because it has overstepped the mark and tried to be more specific than "use logical quotation style".

"Logical quotation style" is basically a set of fairly simple rules about how punctuation is treated when material is being quoted. All we really need to do is say "Wikipedia uses logical quotation style", and then give the most important rules to be followed. Grey areas can be left to the discretion of editors.

At the moment, we seem to be trying to break into the house through the cat-flap by imagining that "logical punctuation" entails a golden rule about preserving the punctuation of the original, from which all else flows. I don't think this is correct. How far you want to preserve punctuation is a distinct stylistic choice, not an integral aspect of logical quotation. You can use American style and have a strict approach to preservation, or you can British style and a liberal approach to it. Wikipedia has a fairly liberal approach to it, which is already set out in the MoS (we alter punctuation for a whole range or reasons, including to correct, make it conform to WP style, avoid foreign punctuation and so on). So, it makes no sense at all for us to start the guidance on punctuating quotations by saying: "For God's sake, whatever you do don't change anything". Formerip (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Any punctuation within quote marks should preserve the intent of the source – this does not mean using exactly the same punctuation marks so long as the original intention of the punctuation is kept (for example, changing a spaced em-dash in the original to a spaced en-dash in the quotation in Wikipedia is fine). Since American/traditional style involves always moving commas and full stops inside the quote marks whether or not they were in the original, how can it be compatible with "a strict approach to preservation"? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

On the first point, yes, precisely. On the second, neither American or British style allows for 100% preservation of punctuation (contrary to what our guidance currently tells editors to do) because both require the modification of punctuation in the original. You can have a strict approach in either case, though. Formerip (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We're a bit off the main point here, but with TQ the quotation cannot be at the end of the sentence if the text between the quote marks is to maintain the absence of punctuation in the original. Consider the rather artificial example:

LQ – The first two words of the Declaration of Independence are "When in".
TQ – The first two words of the Declaration of Independence are "When in."

However, yes, you can always reword the sentence to make the quotation strict:

TQ – "When in" are the first two words of the Declaration of Independence.

Maybe this is the most practical advice we can give: try to word sentences so that their punctuation is the same using either TQ or LQ. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, is it the "especially careful" to which you object? The usefulness of question marks in this case is to illustrate what Fowler and Fowler meant by "placement according to sense." To people unfamiliar with British style, it won't be obvious what it means. But show them a question mark and they'll get it. I have no problem with rephrasing the section to change "especially careful" to something like "this principle is easiest to see with question marks."

FormerIp, yes Wikipedia currently bans American punctuation. That's why I've been asking people about British sources. If we require Wikieditors to use British style in American articles, then it should at least be correct British style. I'm not really sure what the rest of your comment means. Yes, if the MoS contradicts something like the Guardian, then it may well be wrong and should be fixed. However, sometimes the MoS merely chooses from among correct options, requiring one at the exclusion of others. That I think is not so bad. As for "for Gods' sake, don't change anything," I haven't been advocating for that.

Peter Coxhead. The American style is consistent with "a strict approach to preservation" because the period or comma is treated as part of the quotation process and not as part of the quoted material. Placing the period or comma inside the quotation marks does not change the meaning of the quoted material; by definition that meaning is preserved. The only thing that could really change the meaning would be leaving out relevant words, and that's a misquotation regardless of whether American or British/logical style was used.

Also, please stop calling it TQ. The overwhelming majority of sources call it "American." This isn't like "logical" where even a large minority of sources use that name.

As for the example, are you suggesting that we apply WP:Commonality here? I like the idea, but I don't think it should be required. As a practical matter, saying something like, "When possible, place punctuation so that it is consistent with both American and British/logical style" would require an in-MoS explanation of what those styles are. That could probably be done easily. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog, it's not you that I am arguing with, but the guidance as it is currently worded. I'm not attributing "for Gods' sake, don't change anything" to you. It's what the guidance currently says. Or, more precisely: "Except for ellipses, do not place punctuation marks that were not present in the source material inside the quotation marks." This is not really anything to do with LQ. It is about taking a very severe approach to altering the original text. It seems like an MoS equivalent of COATRACK. It's also completely contrary to established practice as set out in the MoS and it is actually inconsistent with LQ, which sometimes actively requires punctuation to be used which was not in the original ("I'll be back," said Arnie.).

Yes, in principle, we could decide that a particular aspect of a particular version of LQ is not right for Wikipedia, and this might mean that I can be wrong even if I am copying what The Guardian does. But that isn't the situation. At the moment, the default is nothing more than: "use LQ". So we ought to take a permissive view with regards to the MoS guidance. We don't really need to get too bogged down in deeper theory and grey areas (particularly since, IMO, we have made a bit of a hash of that). We should be able to just give basic instructions on where LQ says you should place your punctuation. I'll have a go at mocking up what that would look like. Formerip (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

Consensus on the English Wikipedia is to use logical quotation style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written.
Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark if the terminal punctuation of the quoted material is the same as is appropriate for the containing sentence. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside.

Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."

Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".

Where a quoted sentence has been broken up, the latter fragment is treated as the end of a sentence.

"I need", said Marlin, "to find Nemo."

Where a quoted sentence occurs before the end of the containing sentence, a full-stop inside the quotation marks should be omitted. Other terminal punctuation may be included if desired, and a question should end with a question mark.

Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.

Dory said: "Yes, I can read!", which gave Marlin an idea.

Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma should be used in place of a full-stop, but other terminal punctuation may be retained. Again, a question should end with a question mark.

"Fish are friends, not food," said Bruce.

"Why are you sleeping?" demanded Darla.

A quoted word or fragment should not end with a comma inside the closing quotation mark, except where a longer quotation has been broken up and the comma is part of the full quotation.

"Fish are friends," said Bruce, "not food."

"Why", demanded Darla, "are you sleeping?"

Where an exclamation or question mark is added to the end of a sentence which ends in a quotation, any punctuation which would otherwise occur before the closing quotation mark is usually displaced, according to common practice. Note that this is not something that we would expect to see in Wikipedia's voice.

Did Darla really ask: "Why are you sleeping"?

While I was typing this, I thought it would be cute to use examples from Finding Nemo. But maybe examples from Wikipedia would be better. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the Finding Nemo examples, actually. If there's a problem with this it's that it focuses on dialogue instead of on the kind of material that's more likely to be quoted by Wikieditors. There are also places where this could be made less confusing. My preference for the beginning would be something like, "On Wikipedia, use a practice called logical quotation, explained below. This is required of all articles regardless of the variety of English in which they are otherwise written" but it's livable as it is.

And it took me that long to remember that the blue fish is "Dori," not "Darla." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the first paragraph as you suggest.

Are there any bits in particular that you think could be made less confusing? Formerip (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop saying "On Wikipedia"? It is redundant, inaccurate, and appears self-centered. The entire MOS is about "On the English language Wikipedia" [Note: not "on Wikipedia"]. If it was appropriate to say this, in any form, then we would be repeating it in every single section. What reasonable person would think that this MOS applies to anything other than "On the English language Wikipedia", or at most "On Wikipedia". Do people really think that editors will believe that this section of MOS is making statements about what should be done in writing outside of Wikipedia? — Makyen (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I have seen people cite the Wikipedia MoS as if it were a reliable source on general English language practices. This includes, for example, students who didn't know they were going to get marked down for using Wikipedia's punctuation rules in their papers. A two-word allusion to the fact that this is not how things are done off of Wikipedia is appropriate. I wouldn't mind saying, "On the English Wikipedia" if you feel that would be better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence at the top of the page says: "The Manual of Style...is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles." Do we really need to repeat this in each section? If we do specify, no strong opinion about saying "English Wikipedia" but, Makyen, if you are saying we can trust readers to not think it might apply outside Wikipedia, why can we not also trust them to not think it might apply on Russian Wikipedia? Formerip (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In each section no, but most sections don't need it. (You will note that most sections don't have it.) But this particular passage is so very different from standard U.S. English and there are so many cases of "but that's how Wikipedia does it"/"too bad" that a two- or three-word allusion and a link to the article space where the matter can be addressed in depth is not out of line.

In practice, most people just CTRL-F or link straight to the section in question and don't read the lead. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've put is back in. At the end of the day, it's not a lot of extra words. I've also included a reference to "consensus", which I think is useful for addressing the "Oh yeah, according to whom?" issue. Formerip (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and added it. I'm not sure whether to expect it to stick or not. Let's see. Formerip (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this text. Why "Fish are friends, not food," said Bruce. but Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.? Both Fish are friends, not food and Yes, I can read are full sentences, so I don't see why they should be treated differently. DrKiernan (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's because two different rules are operating. If the quote is followed by a clause which identifies the speaker ("said Bruce"), the convention is to convert the full-stop to a comma. If is followed by anything else, the convention is to just omit the full-stop. Formerip (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The examples at the end of the Quotation_mark#Punctuation section imply that the conversion of the final full stop to a comma is American-style and that British-style would be: "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce. I don't see why we're mixing two styles: it's confusing enough as it is without adding greater complexity. DrKiernan (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to suggest what you are saying is correct for British non-fiction, but I think it is the article that is wrong. The Oxford Guide to English Usage says:

The comma at the end of a quotation, when words such as he said follow, is regarded as equivalent to the final full stop of the speaker's utterance, and is kept inside the quotation, e.g. 'That is nonsense,' he said.

The Guardian Style Guide says:

Place full points and commas inside the quotes for a complete quoted sentence; otherwise the point comes outside – "Anna said: 'Your style guide needs updating,' and I said: 'I agree.'"

Formerip (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Common names

I noticed that Southern Hawker was recently moved to Aeshna cyanea. I moved it again to southern hawker (!!). Is there any reason why insects and plants should be exempt from the common name policy? I realise that some taxa may not have common names (eg the bird genus Hirundo) and will be placed at the scientific name by default, but that's no reason to ignore the policy for those that do. We don't have Hirundo rustica instead of barn swallow even though its genus article is Latinised Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Discuss at Talk:Southern hawker, not here. The mover's reason was that the common name is ambiguous. If this is the case, then the move may be justified on the grounds of precision, but this should be determined by discussion on the talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My reversion of the move to southern hawker has been reversed. Three consecutive insect edits on my watchlist were to pages which are currently named Aeshna cyanea (binomial), small tortoiseshell (lc English) and Red Underwing (capped English). Much more of a mess than the bird capitalisation issue, and I see no point tackling one article at a time, especially as this inconsistency also spreads to other faunal groups and plants. If the implementation of the common names policy isn't a MoS issue, so be it, I won't waste my time. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, note that the established convention in biology is that in binomials, such as Aeshna cyanea, the genus is capitalised, and the specific epithet is lc. (I remember that at one time botanists capitalised the specific epithet when it was someone's proper name, (Say Brunsvigia Bosmanae) but I am under the impression that that convention has been dropped (just as well too!)). I mention this to emphasise that no matter what the policy in the MoS might be, concerning common names, it is independent of the correctness of capitalisation of binomials, or indeed other taxon names. Violation of such a convention would amount to a simple error in spelling, such as failing to capitalise New york.JonRichfield (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you are discussing the one format I haven't seen, all the binomials are correctly capped. My points are that

Insects, plants and many other taxa (except birds) seem to be exempt from the common names policy
Even so, there is total inconsistency on the page titles for non-bird groups

Anyway, I've been told above that common names policy isn't an MoS issue, which surprises me, and capitalisation policy seems to be ignored except for birds, so it's obvious nothing is going to done about it here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "common names policy", but WP:AT sets out five principles which should be used to determine the title of an article. Precision is one of these principles. Many English names are used for multiple species, sometimes unrelated ones, so are not sufficiently precise to serve as article titles. "Common name" does not necessarily mean "English name". In many cases, the most common name which is also precise is the scientific name. For plants, the article title policy is explained at WP:NCFLORA#Scientific versus vernacular names.

On the issue of the capitalization of species names, there was in the past no common position among editors working on some groups (e.g. plants, lepidoptera, orthoptera) as to the capitalization of the English names of species. So, yes, you will find a mixture of styles. However, there is now agreement not to capitalize English names. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the previous couple of replies just don't make sense

Multiple names. The bird project had every species at an English name despite multiple names, eg Parasitic Jaeger/Arctic Skua and Horned Grebe/Slavonian Grebe. It can be done. In what sense is Aeshna cyanea more of a common name than southern hawker?
Binomials You assume that binomials are stable, but taxonomy advances at a rate of knots. Would you put Great Egret at Ardea alba, Egretta alba or Casmerodius alba, bearing in mind that some MoS editors believe that even having an agreed global species list breaches WP:OWN
Capitalisation I'm only too aware of the capitalisation policy, but as far as I can see, it's only being implemented at the bird project. Butterflies retain an interesting mix of caps, lc and binomials, even for common species which undoubtedly have English names, but nobody here cares, it's no wonder the bird editors feel singled out.
Inconsistency As I anticipated, the initial flush of enthusiasm for downcasing bird article has largely run out, with only one editor now making significant edits, as far as I can see from by much-reduced watchlist. The easy ones have been done, and the time-consuming lists such as List of hummingbirds and List of birds of Canada and the United States have been ignored, so we now have inconsistency where none existed before
Ownership Why, exactly, is the plant project allowed to set its own policy, and the bird project isn't?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple names The logic of the approach to naming bird articles is that there is an internationally standardized list of English names that can be used (not "common" names, since many of them are not the names commonly used in different English-speaking countries). For other groups there are at best only nationally standardized lists (e.g. for Britain and Ireland, the BSBI has a list of English names for plants, and there is a reasonably standard list of English names for the lepidoptera of the British Isles). Many of these national names are ambiguous in an international encyclopedia.
Binomials I certainly don't think that binomial names are stable! In the area in which I work (plants) there are however some reliable secondary sources (e.g. the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, The Plant List) which we tend to follow.
Capitalisation/Inconsistency Well, I wasn't in favour of the change agreed in the recent RfC, so I can only agree with you that its outcome is likely to be even more inconsistency than there was before. Certainly no-one that I am aware of is presently systematically "fixing" capitalized English plant names.
Ownership The bird project has been allowed to set policy (e.g. using IOC names as article titles), but not to have its own policy on the capitalization of English names. As noted above, I'm not going to justify a decision I did not support.

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This just proves to me that the recent brouhaha involving bird names was nothing more than a vendetta against a project that made the mistake of drawing attention to itself by being too successful. A number of bird editors have left in response, and after a month of attempting to cool down myself and seeing the noticeable decline in bird articles, I'm out too. This is a joke. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will consider the possibility that people only disagree with you about the capitalization of bird names in Wikipedia. You know a lot about birds; there are also a lot of people who know a lot about words. I hope you will continue to contribute. SchreiberBike talk 04:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing a book without page numbers

Does Wikipedia have a policy or guideline about citing a book without page numbers? This question was posed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Citing a book without page numbers (version of 00:48, 3 July 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it have sections or chapters? Are you using a citation template? You can use the "|loc=" parameter to indicate the location in the book. Less precise than what would be ideal, but acceptable. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I recently had the same issue with a series of books in the "Trains in trouble" series. Volumes 1-6 are not numbered, so I cite the page as "Not numbered". Volumes 7 and 8 are numbered, and volume 8 has an index to all 8 volumes, giving the (not-printed) page numbers for the first 6 volumes. I was thus able to go back and add in the page numbers. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please pardon how this might come across, but are you too lazy to just count the pages? Since virtually every book printed is ordinal in nature, not having printed page numbers should not stop you from properly citing it as a source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So which page would you call page 1? The first page of text? The title page? And how helpful or practical is it if the unpaginated book is hundreds of pages long? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In my experience with the publishing industry, for practicality sake pagination (the formal term for page numbering) starts with the cover even if it is blank. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the standard convention is to start the main pagination (with Arabic nunerals: 1, 2, ...) from the first page of text, and the pagination of the prefatory material (with lowercase Roman numerals: i, ii, ...) from the title page. But as Jc3s5h has noted, this is not the right place for this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for this discussion. If any discussion is required beyond that at the reference desk, it should be at WT:Citing sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding WP logo

I think it would be a nice addition to include the WP logo in the lead section. Is there a policy rationale for not including the logo?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The WP logo is on the top left of each page by default, see no reason to add it here. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You do know that the logo is permanently seen in the upper left hand corner don't you? Your placement of it on the page is entirely redundant and, IMO, we don't need to see it twice. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor retention, Signpost discussions of MOS

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere.

Participants here may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#WikiProject Birds‎ and "downcasing" imposition, which is largely (and critically) about MOS. This started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out and spilled over into WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#User:Natureguy1980. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

The rule Wikipedians follow in practice is more like the following:

Either gender-neutral language or generic "he" is acceptable; please don't change from one to the other without any impelling reason to do so.

Any thoughts on what WP:MOS should say?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll bet there are. That's my two cents. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I got to one in section 46 of Archive 100 after clicking on the link. Anyone able to reveal which rule is currently being followed in practice?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you start by revealing that? Editors do things one way unless they're compelled to do it another. Here's the closest thing I think we have to a written rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The rule that we have on gender-neutral language is MOS:GNL; that is sufficient. If the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources regarding a topic don't use gender-neutral language, then I won't either, unless doing so in certain areas of the topic is needed; I defer to the sources, per WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The MOS:GNL page says to use gender-neutral language, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The MOS:GNL clearly notes exceptions (for example, it states "where this can be done with clarity and precision"); furthermore, it is a guideline. WP:Due weight is policy. And WP:Activism should be left at the door when editing Wikipedia; in other words, don't bring it to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Kind of like the rule can be re-worded as:

Either gender-neutral language or generic "he" is acceptable; if you wish to use gender-neutral language, please do so with clarity and precision; if you don't know how to do so, just use generic "he".

Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference (in meaning, not wording) between what the rule says and the re-wording I asked about?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That you indicate that you don't see the difference is why I'm probably done replying to you about this matter. That, and because you have a tendency to let WP:Activism cloud your edits (as recently as this matter). Gender-neutral language can be fine, but it can also cause problems, as noted at Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition; that's why MOS:GNL makes exceptions and notes "clarity and precision" in addition to stating "This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges)." In fact, its exceptions aspect should probably be elaborated on to get across the point regarding objections to gender-neutral language for topics such as phimosis. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the MOS should say anything at all about the issue, one way or another. Mandating what words editors are to use strikes me as a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hell, I have seen people use "she" as a generic pronoun, and it works fine. The key is to be consistent within the article... but beyond that, there is no need for an over arching "rule" that covers all articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there actually articles on Wikipedia that use generic "he"? I don't recall seeing any, and I'm pretty sure it would've jumped out at me—and at many, many other readers. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Just like there are articles that have unsourced BLP content, trivia sections and impenetrable grammar. Wikipedia standards not being consistently met isn't evidence that there isn't consensus in favour of them. Formerip (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia standards not being consistently met": except, according to the above, generic "he" is a Wikipedia standard. Does the community really accept this? If we can't even find examples of this happening, then why is the MoS even talking about it? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my mistake. Still, by the same token, there probably are such articles. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually not my mistake. I mistakenly identified a mistake I had made, but I hadn't made that mistake, so that was my mistake. The standard is as set out in the guideline. What's quoted at the top of this section is an imaginary guideline based on what we supposedly do. But practice doesn't override the guideline in cases like this, because it is always possible to find plenty of examples of guidelines not being applied. That was the point I was making before I got all mistaken. Formerip (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah—I didn't realize that wasn't a quote from the actual MoS. All's right with the world. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, the use of masculine as neuter/indeterminate is in very sharp decline on WP as it is in off-wiki publishing and speech. I regularly convert it to neuter (though not with singular "they", in articles), and I cannot ever recall being reverted on this is almost nine years. Conversion can be challenging for some constructions, but is generally worth it, if for no other reasons than a) it's better to have wording that doesn't distract and irritate our female readers, and b) it's better to use wording now that won't make us look to very nearly everyone like antiquated, casually sexist jackasses within less than a generation. If we can do it right now, there's no reason not just because because some people, almost all of them old and male, don't really want to bother (or worse yet, refuse to cooperate because they think feminists need to STFU). PS: The easiest way to do it is to pluralize, so a they/their/theirs can be used. The second is to use a specific term in place of the singular pronoun, and use synonyms to avoid repetitiveness. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we should endorse the generic "he." It's very old-fashioned and I personally find it sexist. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think MOS:GNL is OK as it stands. Is there any compelling evidence that this is not what is practised? --Boson (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)