Talk:Sentence spacing

Main Reason Commonly Given for Double Spacing Is Not Mentioned
It's to prevent confusion with internal abbreviations where the dot is to be followed by a single space, for example "Mr." or "Dr.", especially because those very common abbreviations are almost always followed by a capital letter. This confusion is mentioned in the section on how computers deal with the distinction but should also be featured in the "Controversy" and "Effects on Readability and Legibility" sections. 68.196.3.202 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)captcrisis

questioning the correctness of the "en quad" being the standard sentence space
The "en space" or "en quad" is in my recollection the standard word space, and the "em space" or "em quad" is the typical sentence space, which is backwards from the page text. Can someone corroborate or rebut this? 41.80.175.9 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
A few sentences are not sourced. And the "Controversy" section may be removed and its content moved elsewhere? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section seems fine to me
There's a tag on the controversy section saying the negative information should be integrated into the rest of the article, but it seems to me it does a fine job of covering the controversy neutrally. I think the tag should be removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I assume the tag was added due to WP:CRIT, but I don't see a better way to handle it here. –CWenger (^ • @ ) 16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed it; if anyone thinks it should stay we can discuss it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the tag should stay @Mike Christie. This section's content should probably be moved elsewhere:
 * The first paragraph with a 2009 quote about the current controversy should probably be moved to the History section, "Transition to single spacing". And/or the lede.
 * The second paragraph seems to be a mixed of pros and cons, starting with the wonderful sentence: "Many people are opposed to single sentence spacing for various reasons." 🤔 "Others claim that additional space between sentences improves the aesthetics or readability of text." is already covered by the following section "Effects on readability and legibility".
 * The third paragraph is similar. Looks like OR to me. It is partially sourced using two blog posts: and.
 * The last paragraph (and part of the third one: "Some sources now state it is acceptable for monospaced fonts to be single-spaced today,[81] although other references continue to specify double spacing for monospaced fonts.") about style guides recommendations should be moved to... "Style and language guides" (if not already there). It is also sourced using a blog post.
 * A455bcd9 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't revert if you made those changes, and I agree the blog posts should go. One of those two appears to have been introduced since the article was promoted.    Perhaps the other is from academics and was considered to be OK for that reason?  I can't see any evidence of that if so, so I agree it should go.  The promoted version is here, and if we're going to edit it or move bits of it I think it's worth checking to see what other differences there are since later edits may not have received as much scrutiny as the paragraph in the originally promoted article.  However, the topic really is controversial (see this for evidence in popular culture), and I think readers may actually want to read a section summarizing the controversy, so I don't think it's harmful so long as the section phrases things neutrally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say that Hallahan and Lloyd are (or were) professors at the University of Virginia Learning Disabilities Research Institute. This doesn't make them subject matter experts on typography. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to check. What do you think @CWenger? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to add about the content of the section. I just don't think the tag is necessary because WP:CRIT is most concerned about BLPs, and this topic is inherently controversial. The content could conceivably be distributed throughout the article instead, but I don't think it's necessary for neutrality. –CWenger (^ • @ ) 17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)