Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (quotes and quote marks 2)

Period before or after citation?

From the article on Hezbollah:

• Hezbollah is one of the two main organizations representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc, but the only militant one.
• Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.

Which is the correct format for period placement? Before or after the <ref>...</ref> tags. --Roxi2 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Before. Placing a period after the footnote is a crime against literacy. This is covered at Wikipedia:Footnotes. Perhaps it should be mentioned under "Punctuation" on this page as well. --Kevin (complaints?) 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Wikipedia:Footnotes#Place_ref_tag_after_punctuation is the guideline we have. It's not universally beloved. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: WP:Footnotes are a crime against literacy. Use parenthetical citations. Then you have the choice of (1) placing the citation inside the sentence to source the sentence, or (2) placing the citation outside the last sentence of a blockquote paragraph to source the entire paragraph. Jon Awbrey 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a difficult time finding it here. Maybe it should be mentioned as Kevin suggests. --Roxi2 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I had fixed all the refs to be after punctuation a couple weeks ago. I guess this is an indication of the quantity of mutation in the information here. Gimmetrow 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

British punctuation in articles written in American English

I'm dismayed that WP policy is to use British-style punctuation (punctuation outside quotation marks) in articles that are written in American English. Sorry, but it's just wrong. WP might as well set a policy that "through" is to be spelled "thru." It doesn't make sense for WP to make up new rules of punctuation that are not used anywhere else, in any publication, anywhere in the English-speaking world. It also doesn't make sense to set a rule that will be violated by any literate person who hasn't read WP's Manual of Style. Anyone who understands the mechanics of punctuation in American English will naturally correct these mistakes --- and they are mistakes, regardless of whether the MoS tries to decree that they're not.--24.52.254.62 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? — Omegatron 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a house style, not a mistake. Nothing to get tied up in knots about. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 23:04 Z

It's correct that, according to the MoS, Hart's Rules should be used. But that doesn't apply to US-specific articles, I think. Since US-specific articles should use US spelling "and style," it is acceptable to use punctuation like "this." SpNeo 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this is an exception to the convention. Likewise, British articles don't use quote marks 'like "this"'. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, house styles can indeed be as arbitrary as the proprietors can get away with. And on the other, readers familiar with established conventions are free to find oddities of usage odd (or even semi-literate). I understand that in matters such as the serial comma, different organizations favor different practices, but in the matter of punctuating quotation marks, it makes sense to follow the flag rather than "splitting the difference." Is WP a US or UK enterprise? RLetson 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an international enterprise, operated by an organization whose official place of registration happens to be in the United States. The problem with "following the flag" is that it results in inconsistent treatment, and it's fortunate that a compromise could be arrived upon in this matter at least. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the standard on WP has always been to use British spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary consistently in articles on specifically British subjects, and similarly for American style on American subjects. I don't see how it could reasonably be done any other way, since Americans don't know British spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation and vice versa -- and it looks ridiculous to mix them. If I'm understanding SpNeo's comment correctly, it seems to match what people actually do on WP. The only reason I was motivated to post here was that someone came along and officiously changed all the punctuation in Robert A. Heinlein to British style, refusing to take no for an answer from the Americans who had been working on this article about an American. It would be nice if the manual of style would just say a little more explicitly that there's nothing wrong with using consistently American style on a specifically American subject.--24.52.254.62 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

not a standard widely followed, however, and fortunately so

Every publisher in the English speaking world uses the conventions of his location. If a UK edition is published, and then a US, all the quotation marks and all the spelling will be changed. Some books with UK conventions are sold in the US, as not all works have a separate US edition. In addition, some works intending to have a "UK flavour" will retain the UK conventions. But the intent of this policy is apparently that all articles about English monarchs should be in UK style, including both the spelling and the use of punctuation. But look at them: US spelling is used, and US style quotation marks. We can't have a Wiki with style considered acceptable by publishers and educators in both countries, because there isn't any. The only way we could achieve that-- eventually--is to have UK and US versions with all the punctuation etc. automatically changed. Our goal for now ought to be a style which the readers of both countries will accept, which is fairly flexible, as readers do at least occasionally encounter both outside WP. An additional consideration is the ease of writing and editing. I want to write in the way I find easiest--there is quite enough problems without using an alien style. I do not want to go around changing other people's national style, or have them waste time changing mine. Let them look to my errors, instead. I'm not going to go through the English monarchs and change every quotation mark. I don't think anybody should. In the meanwhile, the best we can have is consistency. Certainly within an article: anyone editing an article ought to follow the style of the article, and it would be right to change inadvertent difference as one finds them. Possibly within a series of articles, possibly within a type of article, such as pop culture figures specific to one or another country, or which deliberately maintain such specificity. DGG 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you on this issue. For American topics, I see no reason why Wikipedia should adhere to an unsightly punctuation style for which many English teachers in the United States would give a student only half credit (a C grade) or worse. --Coolcaesar 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what happens if they misspell "its" as "it's" then? Do they amputate their right hand? Anyway, as was said in the archives, unsightliness is in the eye of the beholder... PizzaMargherita 10:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but there are a lot of beholders in the U.S. We have a huge publishing industry unequalled anywhere else which overwhelmingly prefers the practice of consistently placing commas and periods inside quotation marks because it is more aesthetically pleasing. Also, we don't amputate, we simply flunk people out of school. Eventually they end up in prison. See three-strikes laws for information on what happens then. --Coolcaesar 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few of them, however, seem to slip through the net and end up in reputable jobs.

I bow to the magnitude of "your" publishing industry, but don't forget about the scores of beholders and publishers everywhere else in the world (including America) that adopt the other convention. PizzaMargherita 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At present, the convention is to put punctuation marks outside of quotes if they aren't part of the quote, whatever the topic of the article. If you would like to change it, discuss it here, do not revert someone who tries to edit an article to conform to our style guidelines. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try avoiding imperatives like "do not." It comes off as rude and pushy. There are other ways to phrase a suggestion than by giving an order. You might also want to try other techniques rather than charging into an article and making a change against the consensus of editors who actually have a history of substantial contributions to the article.--24.52.254.62 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The principle that Wikipedia guidelines should generally be followed deserves imperatives, and general consensus trumps local consensus. Whether we have general consensus is up for debate, but something that's been on one of our biggest guideline pages for a couple of years needs to be considered prima facie to have consensus. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Æsthetics is in the eye of the beholder as was mentioned. There may be a lot of beholders in the US but there are more outside. As for me, I don't find logical punctuation unsightly. Quite the contrary for me it's American punctuation which is the eye-sore. --Jimp 00:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

disagreement about WP style guidelines, and imperatives

In my particular field, scholarly publishing , the overwhelming majority of publishing is outside the US, as it has always been. Most scholarly journals use one style or another, because in conventional publication, one looks through an issue and it is unsettling if the successive ones do not look the same. In e-journals and other contemporary forms, people read each article by itself. They are as likely to go from an article of publisher A to one of publisher B, and, although they may notice the style difference, they don't much care. There's no real precedent for a work like this one. The structure invites people to go from one article to another, but the overall consistency in the makeup of the page is enough. If we keep that, its sufficient.

• the effort devoted by publishers to house style is probably non-productive--it makes them feel important.
• the effort devoted here to house style serves a similar purpose--it makes the copyeditors among us feel important.
• much more to the point would be effort expended in fact checking, in clarifying the structure of WP, in ensuring articles are understandable and correct, and inconsistencies with other articles are found, and either adjusted or explained.
• And that the number of references and the sourcing of material and the other important guidelines that affect usefulness and content are followed.
• the need for a MOS in WP is to help the editor/authors. There are many matters where people need help with problems they have ever encountered; where their is a customary style, but non-specialists will not know it.

It's a reference, not a textbook

• The discussion below about quotation style illustrates my point. It is perfectly possible to follow any of the contradictory set of WP conventions and end up with useful citations; it is also possible to follow them and produce the opposite.
• We need to be prescriptive about the results, readability and accuracy.
• We need style guidelines for problems that were not obvious at first--adding dates to quotations and data so they can be updated, saying the same thing twice over, trying to get too much into the lead--especially details which really belong much lower down.

We do indeed need to worry about style, but we are worrying about the wrong half--the "accidentals", not the "substantatives". The punctuation, not the ideas. DGG 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing quotation style? Again? It's not the "British" way, nor the "American" way. It's called logical quotation style. Wikipedia adopts it. End of story. Shall we put a comment in the MoS with a reference to the archives? PizzaMargherita 07:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is the British way and the American way, and those who call one of these the "logical" style confuse their own familiarity with "logicality". Redefining the language may fool some people, but it doesn't constitute an argument. If Wikipedia wants to adopt British style, that's fine, but it shouldn't misrepresent facts as it does so. - Nunh-huh 08:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check the archives. PizzaMargherita 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but one would be stupid to believe that adopting the name "logical" for a style of punctuation actually makes it logical, no matter what people have said to the contrary in the archives. - Nunh-huh 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What's illogical about it? Only the punctuation that is part of the actual quotation goes inside the quotation marks. This makes it logical. Conversely, how is the other convention logical?

Being not logical, it is ambiguous. Consider this.

Did Jane say "really?"

What am I asking, if she said "really?" or "really"? Or, using the confusing convention, what am I asking, if she said "really?" or "really?"

Finally, it's inconsistent, or anyway the rules are more complicated. Consider this.

Did Jane say "Shut up!"?

Why does the question mark stay outside in this case? PizzaMargherita 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Positioning of punctuation is a matter of convention, not logic. This should surprise no one: it is so with most matters of style. - Nunh-huh 10:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good then, Wikipedia adopts the logical convention. Which incidentally, as discussed in the archives, it's not correct to call "British", nor it's entirely correct to call the other one "American". PizzaMargherita 10:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Conventions are conventions. They are not intrisically logical or illogical; they are conventional, and one is not better than another because you call it "the logical convention", just as you can't make someone "pro-death" by calling their opponents "pro-life". And we call things by the names by which they are known, whether or not you think they are entirely correctly so called or not. - Nunh-huh 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Conventions may not be "intrinsically" logical or illogical, but they can be demonstrated to be so. Your argument has failed to convince me that the convention adopted by Wikipedia after a long debate (and I can't see any new elements being brought forward here) is not logical and that the other one is not illogical, inconsistent (or more complicated) and ambiguous. Feel free to propose a better name for the logical convention. PizzaMargherita 12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that were you to become arbiter of what things are called, it would be important to convince you. In the meantime, I suggest you call it "the current Wikipedia style suggestion" rather than trying to enforce your perceptions of what is logical by a feat of naming. - Nunh-huh 12:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very important to convince me as well as everybody else who agreed to adopt this convention. That of being logical is an objective property and has nothing to do with my perception, or anybody else's. Do you agree or do you not agree that one convention is logical and the other one is not? If you don't, are you able to explain why? Also calling it a suggestion when in fact it is an adopted convention would be negating the discussions that led to its adoption. PizzaMargherita 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be you, rather than "everybody else who agreed to adopt this convention", who is campaigning to call it the "logical" one. Placement of punctuation is not a matter of logic, but a matter of convention. If logic were involved, and one convention were clearly more logical than all others, there wouldn't be different conventions, would there? Therefore trying to "convince" you that one convention is more logical or less logical would be a silly task, because "logic" simply isn't involved. - Nunh-huh 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If logic were involved, and one convention were clearly more logical than all others, there wouldn't be different conventions, would there?—Yes there would. They would be illogical and ambiguous, and demonstrably so. PizzaMargherita 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for proving that opinion rather than logic is your strong point. - Nunh-huh 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Demonstrably so"? Then go ahead and demonstrate. Please note that you can't postulate anything that we don't all agree to fully; that's begging the question. I expect a proof in formal logical notation, please, if the convention is in fact more logical.

The truth of the matter is, it's not more logical. It's occasionally less ambiguous than the American style, but only by a small degree, and that still only makes it more logical if you accept the axiom that style rules should be geared to minimize ambiguity, which clearly not everyone here does (I largely do). It's certainly not any more logical than the British style. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided at least one instance that shows that the convention that you call "American" is ambiguous, and one instance that shows that it's inconsistent. Can you provide one counterexample? The current rule is more logical at least in the loose sense of the word, in that it's rational. You put in the quotes what is part of the quotes. I strongly believe that this is less logical than a rule that says "you put in the quotes the quotation itself, and other random stuff that has nothing to do with the quotation".

Anyway, if you are suggesting that the style should not be called "logical" but "unambiguous", or "consistent", or "clear", or "simple", or "rational" I have no problems with that, although I would still prefer "logical". Other suggestions are welcome. PizzaMargherita 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The style is less ambiguous. I wouldn't object to calling them "unambiguous quotations", although obviously that sacrifices precision for concision. The point is that preferring less ambiguous constructions to more traditional ones is not inherently "logical". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If that were true you would be able to disprove that the one convention is logical and the other one is not. Sadly, you are trying to use irrational denial to do that. PizzaMargherita 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PizzaMargherita, thanks for the pointer to the numerous past discussions on this issue. The fact that this gets brought up over and over again indicates several things: (1) Lots of people think the MoS is wrong as written. (2) Lots of people think it's ambiguous as written. (3) It's completely out of step with the way WP actually works. (4) It's causing lots of problems and conflicts between editors. Since the discussion indicates that there's a massive problem with the current policy (interpreted literally and without allowing for exceptions), the logical thing to do would be to change the broken part of the policy so that it works the same as the other policies, which aren't broken: articles should use US style or British style consistently, and the choice should be based on the topic, or on the style in which the article was originally written.--24.52.254.62 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have said this, but the anonymous user said it better. There is no logical style for details; no one has ever found a perfect way of handling quotations, or references, There is a pattern and a explanation for how various point of English grammar arose, but that does not make them "logical." Similarly with typography--there is knowledge of how our conventions arose and why they differ: that does not make them logical.

PizzaMargherita, you were not appointed head grammarian. If the MOS were intended to be enforced rigorously, then I would think it worth demonstrating how you have gotten amost of what you discuss confused. I advise you not to try enforcement. Anyone who makes large scale changes to express their stubbornness about the one right way to do punctuation should be looked for, and reverted. I'd say this even if I thought your "logical" style had any logic. This is not a question of what style is right, its a question of how to do coperative work. DGG 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All of those points are a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the current system is better than one page uses one style, another uses another. This is how things work on Wikipedia, it's a widely-accepted convention even if some people disagree with it. I don't think it should be changed. If you would like to propose it be changed, by all means you can try, but don't unilaterally pretend it doesn't exist. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try avoiding imperatives like "...don't unilaterally pretend..." It comes off as rude and pushy. There are other ways to phrase a suggestion than by giving an order.--24.52.254.62 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the current policy on national spellings is working, you are mistaken. The policy on punctuation and quotes was changed to put an end to edit wars. Note that the same cannot be done with spelling because in that case it's not true that one variety is clearly superior to others, and the different styles do reflect geography. PizzaMargherita 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But even there, it's important to note that in many cases one spelling is preferred. Aluminium uses the British name, and sulfur the American, because that's the IUPAC standard (I don't know if changing all instances of one to the other is a good idea, though, outside of chemistry articles). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The quotation style has been in place for I think at least couple of years, probably longer. I expect that it is a compromise. I see no need to change it. Maurreen 06:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Very early in this discussion, somebody said "It also doesn't make sense to set a rule that will be violated by any literate person who hasn't read WP's Manual of Style." I agree with this statement completely. It's very frustrating for me to have to learn a whole new set of rules for Wikipedia that don't apply any where else. I, an American, should be free to use American conventions when writing for/about Americans, and it's rather silly of Wikipedia to ask me to do otherwise. As for Convention vs. Logic, when I read the talk above about the "logical" approach, it seems that some of the people arguing don't even know the rules that they are arguing for or against. For example, the rule of placing punctuation inside or outside of quotation marks refers chiefly to periods and commas. The rule for question marks is this: The question mark goes inside the quote if and only if it is part of the quote. Perfectly logical, and (I believe) the same on both sides of the Atlantic, so irrelevent to this discussion. -- MiguelMunoz 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

why, Maurreen

do you think you have accomplished anything positive? The total inconsistency within articles remains. The articles completely ignoring the need for clarity remain. The number of articles that ignore the UK/US convention probably increases. There is no way to enforce the details except by being a dictator, which i believe is not the WP intent. The MOS is for the purposes of saying: here are a few good ways to do things. Look at them, look at similar articles, and see what works and what doesn't. And if you have to do something you never imagined, like decide whether to capitalize transliterated Japanese, most of our people who have encountered it have been doing it thus and so. The rules that need attention in WP are the basic ones about content. DGG 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"I, an American, should be free to use American conventions when writing for/about Americans?" You are free to use the style you desire. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the purpose of the MoS. Others are free "edit mercilessly" and if that brings your writing (which is yours now only in the sense of having been written by you) in line with the MoS, all well and good. Rich Farmbrough 09:16 29 August 2006 (GMT).

and of course this implies that others are free to re-edit. And if the editors and the re-editors pay attention to this sort of nonsensical detail, the quality and objectivity of the content will not get the proper attention. I have a suggestion for those who like detail: go verifying internal and external links and addding themany needed redirects. Don't try to teach your colleagues how to punctuate. DGG 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)