Talk:Sentence spacing/Expansion dispute

This article is not very useful for the average visitor
This article, while well-referenced and in exhaustive detail - is poorly organized and difficult to navigate for the average user.

Consider that the article is most likely to be visited by someone that was told that "two spaces is no longer used at the end of a sentence," and wants to find out if that is true or not. Of course, this visitor could be Australian, British, etc., but is most likely to be an American. Recent visitors include myself and a relative - exactly for this purpose.

Before I visited this site, I referenced the major manuals of style. I then consulted with the thesis office at a nearby university (who deals with almost every U.S. writing style) and asked if any U.S. writing style prescribed the use of two spaces. The answer was, although some permit the use of double spaces, "no." I began referencing international writing style guides before I decided that no further research was needed. The case was clear enough.

However, I then found this Wikipedia article, which offers a lot of historical (and confusing "French style" information) background and generally didn't get to the point I was looking for. The information is presented in such as way as to make the reader believe that there is no answer.

Why not format the article to retain the exhaustive data that could reasonably be retained in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, while also placing the information that the average visitor wants to see at the top of the article and top of relevant sections?

Here are some problems with the article that relate to this issue:


 * 1. In "General Preferences," the following statement "Some authors believe that text using double-spaces between sentences is more readable than text written with only one space after the period" is cited by at least one reference (the 1959 government style guide) that has been superceded by a newer manual that says the opposite.
 * 2. There is no statement in "general preferences" or in the lead paragraph or in the overview that states the consensus among writing styles now. This is the key data point that most of the article's visitors are looking for.
 * 3. To support that statement, this article could list all, or most of the major style guides used in the U.S. at a minimum. The Oxford Manual of Style should also be added.
 * 4. The Elements of Style has been criticized, and with good reason, but is a manual widely used and recognized in the U.S. Why not list that one?
 * 5. "Style guides" leads with the "French Style." Why lead with the "French Style" in an English Wikipedia article? Especially when it says what the English manuals say?
 * 6. The next paragraph in "Style Guide" which is (currently) the place that a synthesis of the style guides should be - omits the most important point to the average visitor: the fact that "english" style guides (and probably most international guides) indicate that a single space is proper or preferred!

I applaud the erudite writers that added the incredible detail in this article.

Now, let's make it a useful page for the average visitor by addressing the purpose of her/his visit to this page. Airborne84 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes
I revised the article so that "Modern Application and Usage" is up front. I believe that is appropriate for this article, although it might not be for all Wiki articles. I'm sure that the vast majority of people come here to get the answer to the question "how many spaces do I use after a sentence"? Given the amount of traffic on the Internet regarding that question, that is a more than reasonable assumption.

Although this article now generally answers the question, it still needs a lot of improvement. I have more to add to the style guide section, so that will likely need to get split off eventually - replaced by a summary section that links to a "List of Style Guides - Double spacing after a sentence" or something like that. However, that will leave the article left with primarily historical "fluff" which is confusing and not well organized. If you're interested in contributing - let's figure out how to address the other stuff to bring the article's current and future quality up. Airborne84 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are attempting to answer the question more definitively than it has in fact been answered. Two spaces are still used; your own last version of the article makes several references to it.  It is not appropriate to use WP to promote a particular stylistic choice in the outside world; your remarks about "the vast majority of people" etc at least make one wonder if that's your purpose.
 * Accordingly I have reverted to just before you started your many edits. Of course they are not lost, and useful ones can be incorporated in an NPOV manner, but it needs more eyes.  I would never have noticed this obscure article if not for your changes at the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD - Now let's discuss
Wow. I'm still trying to wrestle with the rationale. "I see that someone has done dozens of hours of work on this article, adding well-referenced information from reliable sources that add pertinent elements to an article that is debated quite a bit on the Internet. Even though it will revert the article to a B-class on the quality scale - returning it to a confusing mess of information that doesn't answer the average reader's question he/she asks when they come here...'I don't like it. I'll just delete it all.'" Please see the first paragraph in the Wikipedia policy WP:PRESERVE for why I have a big problem with that.

I see you stated on the WP:MOS page that the single space convention was "less legible." That's typical for people that are attached to that rule, but have no empirical evidence to support that assertion. If you'll notice, the only studies done on this convention were in one of the sections you deleted. They were equivocal. None of them found a result one way or the other. So, I'm wondering where you derived your information that the sinlge space convention is less legible? I provided the information from the text of the only one of the three studies that I could obtain since I thought people would want to know. I'm still trying to get the text of the other studies from the universities that conducted them. If you can get them, you could help improve the article (as opposed to deleting information).

OK, now you don't like the lede, let's fix it. I don't WP:OWN this article, regardless of how much effort I've put into improving it. It needs a LOT more work. I'm slowly doing that, even though I'm very busy. Below are my issues with the lede change, and my ideas on how to continue with the improvement of the article.

Lede: 1. It might well need adjustment. However, the portion you deleted removes the scope of the article. Without defining it (as currently is) as Latin-derived languages, someone could say we are not following WP:WORLDVIEW by not including Sanscrit, Cyrillic, Cuniform, Hieroglyphics, Chinese characters, etc. This convention is not relevant to those languages. I don't mind changing the wording, but simply deleting it is a problem. 2. The double-space is a historical convention. Please read through the exhaustive research of reliable and authoritative sources I've referenced to provide ample evidence of that. If you think that sentence needs referencing, I can add a reference. Or two. Or six. Or ten. However, if your issue is that it's simply too much information within a "lede," that's a different matter. Now we're talking useful wording "adjustments," as opposed to "deletions."

Improvements: This is a work in progress. I'm glad you saw this at WP:MOS because, as you can see above, I've been trying to get other editors to help contribute. None did until there was a massive "contribution" today.
 * 1. I don't think the article needs a "criticism" section (regarding the current convention), but the fact that there are many Americans who believe that the double-space rule is the convention (see List of common misconceptions) and Americans who simply use the double space in their personal correspondence because that is what they were taught merits more inclusion in the article. I've been trying to figure out how to do that, although it's been slow going since I stay quite busy. Perhaps a section could be added under "Misconception." My feeling though, is that although that would probably be the most accurate way to describe it, people would point to it and say "this article is WP:POV." I'm not sure what to call the section, but it should expand on the misconception, as well as Americans personal preferences (regardless of convention), and the reasons for them.
 * 2. My plan is to add a section called "Inter-sentence spacing: Effects on readability and legibility" and add some more of what the literature states in a section within. The "studies" paragraph would go under this heading. I actually did this last night and added a paragraph, but my block quote was messing up the indent for the rest of the article below, so I reverted.
 * 3. I have more books and sources coming - most of them are listed as references in the various style manuals that I have used. At some point, the upper section will have to be condensed a bit so it doesn't turn into a coatrack. It's relevant right now because some people won't believe the single space is the convention unless they are presented with incontrovertible evidence. At some point, it will become too much though, and some synthesis will have to be done - or the "list" split off into a list that is linked to this page.
 * 4. That presents a problem for the rest of the page though. It is poorly organized, and full of relatively unimportant information. Some could extraneous portions could be deleted, although I'm just not a fan of destroying information. It might be better simply rewritten so it flows better.
 * 5. I'm pretty sure there were only three studies done on the readability and legibility of the two rules. However, I haven't been able to obtain the text on two of them. Could use some help finding them. That doesn't mean there aren't more studies out there on this, but I have extensive research tools available and have spent a lot of time looking for them. Could use some help searching, since that is the most relevant factor in this entire page for Modern Applicability and Usage, from my viewpoint. Any study's results should be added - and I don't care if there are three out there that say "double spacing is clearly more readable and aids comprehension."
 * 6. POV. If you have recommendations on WP:POV, I'd be happy to discuss. I tried to be careful how I phrased certain items, but there may still be an impression. You'll note that I didn't cherrypick though. I actually expanded the section on the APA style, because the paragraph that was there before simply stated that it used the single space convention. Although the APA's current recommendation for the use of two spaces for draft manuscripts didn't follow the "consensus," I thought a reference as important as that needed full inclusion.

There's a lot more to do. I'd like to get this to FA status someday, but it will take a LOT of work. There are dozens of blog sites set up with people asking "what is correct?" and "what is the convention?" and there is no answer - only personal tastes and opinions. I'd like this article in this encyclopedia to provide a factual, well-referenced answer, as well as provide the relevant history and other aspects. When it does so in a NPOV manner (as agreed to by all editors), covers all aspects, and is well-written, it should hit FA status. Until then, please keep contributing to make this page better. Airborne84 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article absolutely must not answer the question "what is correct?" or "what is the convention?", precisely because there is no uniform answer. Attempting to provide one is automatically intolerably POV.  The lead must go back to neutral wording, meaning that it must not "answer" your question.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That statement is a little bit strange. People go to encyclopedias to get answers. If I want to know if you can really see the Great Wall of China from the moon (like I was taught in grade school), I go to an encyclopedia and try to get an answer. You'll note that in the GWOC page, there is a large section devoted to this, with a lot of evidence presented. What use is this section to people that simply want to know about the Great Wall of China? It's because people go to Wikipedia and encyclopedias because they provide factual and verifiable answers. Factual isn't important to Wikipedia, verifiability is. If you would like to provide references to support your assertion that the double-space is the convention used today, please do so. The words "uniform answer" do not appear in the text or the lede. The word "convention" is used, which is correct.
 * Regardless, please stop edit warring until we reach a resolution on this. You have yet to propose an alternative lede. I await your proposal and then perhaps we can continue the discussion. Airborne84 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still competing conventions, and therefore there is no "the" convention. I just picked up a reprint of a paper I published just a year or two ago, and it had extra space between the sentences.  Therefore it is incorrect to say that single-spacing is "the" convention, or to refer to extra spacing in the past tense. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still competing preferences - that is certainly true. Again, please remember that Wikipedia doesn't claim to present the truth. It presents verifiable information. I can cite the sentence in question in the lede with close to 10 authoritative style guides and references. What references have you offered? I have two more points.
 * I'm still waiting for a proposed adjustment. I am open to changing the lede to make it better. I'm not emotionally attached to its exact wording.
 * You still have not addressed the scope of the article. Your deletion/revertion removes the portion identifying the scope of the article. Airborne84 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By "scope" you mean the stuff about the Latin alphabet? Frankly I thought that was sort of confusing.  I really think we're talking about English here.  Other languages make their own conventions even if they use the same alphabet.
 * I don't have an alternative wording at the moment and I'm at work so I can't spend time on it right now. My concerns are (i) that it not refer to extra spacing in the past tense and (ii) that it not imply that extra spacing is no longer used or is incorrect.  Some purely descriptive language describing the trend towards single spacing would be acceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * absolutely must not answer the question..... I disagree. The Wikipedia's purpose is to document both the historical data and provide accurate present day information. 1) First, it should be made clear that the double-space issue is apparent only in the US. The controversy does not exists in other parts of the world. It doesn't even exist (in education) in other English speaking countries like UK or Australia. To my knowledge, there has never been a Government education program in countries outside of US that would have taught "double spacing" rules. I believe not even in Canada, but please correct if I'm mistaken. 2) Because this is a US centered topic, there is nothing wrong in presenting accurate present day information for the US readers visiting the page. If I understand correct, there in the US there is no single common curriculum of writing teached in the elementary schools that would be imposed by the government. This seems to be a major difference from the rest of the world where Government policies are carried out in every school. Therefore, in the US, an individual teacher may have adopted a style, one way or other--possibly influenced by tradition, to teach single or double space rules. However, there are norms in the present day public communication. These can be derived from three sources: the Government guidelines, the Academic publishing guidelines and from the publishing industry. E.g. did you know that Supreme Court rulings, or Federal legislation, or briefs filed by the US Solicitor General follow the Style Manual by US Government Printing Office (The GPO Style) where "single space" is the norm. This is usually a shock to lawfrms of which many still believe that "two space" is more appropriate in legal matters. While US government does have a common curriculum, in some sense, the GPO Manual could have been the closest what the education sector could have followed. However, there are norms in the higher education--the academic--sector and in the commercial publishing industry. These define styles what are acceptable; and these end product artefacts are the printed history, if you will. The service the Wikipedia is doing is to collect and document each sectors' sources. What have the authoritative sources said about the spacing in the past and what do they say about it now in the 21th century? Let's collect what are the guidelines for publishing industry: the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), the Associated Press Style Guide (AP Style) etc; the major guidelines for the academic sector: Modern Language Association (MLA), Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA Style), AMA Manual of Style--A Guide for Authors and Editors (American Medical Association, AMA Style); english guidelines outside of US: The Oxford Style Manual aka The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (UK), Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (AGPS Style, Australian Government). Let's also include the most influential and authoritative english books: The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst ("the bible"), The Complete Manual of Typography by James Felici ("bible class"), The Blue Book Guide to Grammar & Punctuation by Jane Strauss (also in the "bible class"), The Copyeditor's Handbook--A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications by Amy Einsohn (possibly redundant because mostly based on CMS). --User:jaalto 2010-04-26 18:49
 * Please see new thread at bottom. Airborne84 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can also add that with the (now close to 30) style guides I have referenced, as well as the other sources, I have not found a single one that states that the double-space is the convention today in final and published work. The caveats to that are listed in the article. Airborne84 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Extra spacing (if not double spacing) is definitely used in published work. In particular it's the output of TeX; this fact is noted in the article.  The lead must not imply otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thank you for pointing that out. I added citation needed to that section. Honestly, I haven't messed with that portion of the article much since it's confusing, rambling, and is not really very well cited by citations.
 * Since you seem to not be willing to propose an alternative lede that still defines the article within a useful scope while removing any perceived POV (for which I have already stated that I am amenable), I will reflect some on this in the next 24 hours. I can certainly add eight or so citations to the relevant sentence in the lede to provide for its verifiability, but that seems a bit drastic. I'll take a look at making some wording adjustments to address your concerns. I can't do it now since I have to break away. Please refrain from edit warring on this since we have reached the discussion stage of WP:BRD. If you don't provide alternatives on the talk page or you don't like my suggestions (although I think I can adequately address your concerns), we can open the matter up to other parties to get more opinions on the matter. There's no need to rush to judgment on this since Wikipedia is a work in progress.Airborne84 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I saw the other post you left. No, only English is not appropriate (although that would be more of a scope than that provided by your revert). I didn't add all the information about French spacing to the article, that was here when I arrived. Nevertheless, it couldn't be only about English simply because of that. I wrestled with it for a while, started with modern Latin alphabet and then settled on Latin-derived with some more research. If you have a better idea, I'm open to it. I am not claiming that is the best way to describe the scope of the article - but there must be some limit as described above.
 * No, the article should not say that double-spacing is not used anymore. It clearly is, but primarily in informal correspondence (such as e-mail) because of personal preferences... and primarily in America. In fact, that needs to be expanded in the article, as I noted. I simply haven't gotten to it yet.
 * It is appropriate to state what the current convention is today. The single space is (and is verifiable). The double space is not (that fact is also verifiable). In that light, it is appropriate to refer to the use of the double-space as a historical convention. Again, my opinion and yours about what is the truth is irrelevant here. What is relevant is verifiability. You are welcome to make this article better. I encourage it, since I've been going this alone for too long. However, please try to keep an open mind (given your obvious attachment to the double-space). The standard I have established for this article so far (which is needed in an article of this type) is that it is well-referenced with authoritative sources. Please continue that standard when adding information. Airborne84 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I entirely disagree that single-spacing is "the" current convention. What you have found is that various style guides give it as their convention.  TeX at the very least is a counterexample to the claim that it is "the" convention (and this is certainly sourceable -- it should be in The TeXbook for example; I don't personally own a copy but it shouldn't be tough to find). --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, again, your and my opinions are irrelevant here. What matters is what reliable primary and secondary sources have to say on the matter. I will support the statment using "historical convention" with a number of citations - if you'd like, a large number. This is not only in style guides; various sources refer to it as "the convention." Here's an example:


 * You should also delete any extra word spacing before or after punctuation marks. The conventions are: One space follows a sentence-ending punctuation mark (period, question mark, or exclamation point). The Copyeditors Handbook A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications p. 113.

The other conventions noted after that in the book are not in relation to inter-sentence spacing. You'll note that it doesn't state "our convention," but "the convention." That is the requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia. Verifiability. I have a large number of sources that state that the double space is the historical convention. I thought that was well-explained in the article below the lede, but if you'd prefer me to cite the statement in the lede as opposed to adjusting the wording to address your perception that it is POV, I can certainly do that. Airborne84 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not satisfactory; there are competing conventions and the lead must acknowledge that. In particular the TeX case is a counterexample. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided a source yet though. Keep in mind that the source should say "double-spacing is the convention" or something along those lines. I can provide historical books, some probably as recent as 10 years ago, that used double-spacing. You could probably find obscure and niche publications that use double-spacing in publications (although I have not yet seen them). That's not the same as a secondary source saying "XXXX is the convention." That is what you will need to provide to counter the many sources that state that "single-spacing is the convention" and 'double spacing was the convention." Airborne84 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a fundamental logical problem with your claims here. Obviously there is no one in charge of providing a uniform convention.  So any convention can only be inferred from usage.  There is no way anything can go from being used in respected, carefully edited publications to "contrary to the convention" in only ten years; that's absurd on its face.
 * We can certainly report that these various guides say that this is the convention, but not that it is. --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. "Convention can only be inferred from usage." What percentage of publications in countries using Latin-derived languages use the double-space convention? Would you say it's less or more than 0.001%? There is no claim in the article that everyone uses the single-space convention in their informal use, such as e-mail. In fact, the bottom of the first paragraph below the lede states otherwise.
 * I started putting citations on the "historical convention" wording in the lede, and then decided it was going to clutter up the lede. Since it's explained well enough in the following paragraphs, I deleted "historical convention" in one instance. I'm willing to adjust the other wording, but not to the extent that it suggests that the double-space is the convention today for final and published work. I'm also OK reducing the size of the lede, but some elements need to be retained, such as the scope of the article.
 * There's also another issue that shows you are emotionally attached to the double-space rule. Style guides are primary sources. Since you assert that you have written an article, I'm sure you understand the validity of a primary source over secondary and tertiary sources, blogsites, and people's opinions. People that write follow these style guides. Stating that writing style guides are irrelevant to writing conventions is a difficult statement to fathom. You even stated on the WP:MOS page that what authoritative style guides (primary sources on writing) said on this subject didn't matter. That makes no sense and I won't belabor the point any more.
 * I don't know if you've read the article yet, since many of your early statements indicated that you had not. If you have not read it completely, I urge you to do so - especially if you intend to contribute to make this article better.
 * Also, you continue to make statements of opinion ("There is no way anything can go from being used in respected, carefully edited publications to "contrary to the convention" in only ten years; that's absurd on its face"). That is not the purpose of the talk page. It's about how to improve the article. Your opinion is not relevant here. My opinion is not relevant here. The opinion of reliable and verifiable sources is relevant on Wikipedia. Please consider visiting the Wikipedia policy WP:SOAP. It states: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." It also notes that "Although some topics...may stir passions and tempt people to 'climb soapboxes' (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this." You've already run into WP:IDONTLIKEIT when you committed the most egregious violation of WP:PRESERVE I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies can only help.
 * However, that's in the past, and I will WP:assume good faith. Please keep an open mind, visit the quality scale to see what is needed to make this B-rated article better, and address those areas that will make it so. Airborne84 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Excessive length, and wrong title
Just passing... I am impressed by the amount of work that has clearly gone in to this article, and I don't want to poor cold water on an editor's enthusiasm for his subject, but isn't it all a bit excessive for a minor matter of typesetting style? Do we really need an article of 8,000 words on it? I reckon the essential details (the single-space convention is followed by nearly all typesetters, and recommended by nearly all style manuals, and it differs from the way it used to be done in typewritten copy) would require at most two short paragraphs, maybe with two or three references. Two other points: SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a bad case of WP:TLDR, and I haven't read it all, but the article really must steer clear of recommending or prescribing, and limit itself to describing.
 * 2) I am far from convinced by the title. Who on earth is going to come to an encyclopaedia looking for "Double spacing at the end of sentences"? Shouldn't this whole thing be replaced by a much shorter article called Sentence spacing?
 * Some good points certainly.
 * In America, the misconception that the double-space is the convention is widespread. Besides the fact that a lot of teachers still teach it in schools here (because they think it's still the convention), there are dozens of websites set up with people discussing this, because they don't know what the convention is and they're trying to find out. Discussion rages back and forth with few answers - only opinions, tastes and preferences. Interestingly, many of those sites point to Wikipedia to get an answer. I came here myself to see what it said (although I had looked in style guides, and have read books, magazines, and newspapers and so already knew the answer). The article was horribly written, confusing, and didn't offer an answer either way (as in the manner that the article on the Great Wall of China provides an answer on whether it can be seen from the moon). It was actually written in such a way as to suggest that the double-space was the convention. That's probably why it was rated B-class on the quality scale. People came to find out what reliable sources had to say, and were left wanting.
 * In light of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, listing the style guides is useful - say, for example, for someone who wants to know what their particular style guide (legal, medical, social sciences) says on the topic. It's also useful in the light that many Americans can be confronted with incontrovertible evidence on a subject and still go into denial and say "that doesn't matter." I've seen that many times. So, just listing what one or two MoSs say on the subject just wouldn't be enough for some people. In that sense, 8,000 words may still not be enough.
 * You do mention a very pertinent point. As editors, we have to be careful about interpreting what the sources state on a subject. For example, I can't list all the style guides as primary references and say myself: "that's the convention." However, the article lists secondary sources that state "the single space is the convention" and that "the double-space is the historical convention." So, I am not interpreting the manuals and the data (although if I have written it that way in the article, it will need adjusting). I listed the manuals and the data they present in a straightforward manner (at least I thought), and then used the secondary sources which interpreted the data.
 * I should be clear - I did not "cherry pick" only sources that stated the single space is the convention for final and published work. I researched a lot of books and sources (some are not listed because they don't contribute one way or the other) and absolutely none stated that the double space was the convention. Many stated that the single space is the convention. Some didn't address this issue. As long as reliable secondary sources state that, this article will prove a useful resource for the 4,000-6,000 that visit it monthly. That's my intent, to make it useful.
 * So, because this is a widely debated topic in America (if you're in America, go do an informal survey of middle-aged people around you and you'll see), and many websites point to Wikipedia for an answer, it is appropriate for this article to. 1. List what style guides have to say on the matter for their particular area of influence, and 2. List what reliable secondary sources have to say on the matter.
 * It may be WP:TLTR for many people. That's why it's important to state what is most useful for the average reader up front. However, there will likely be people that come to this site to find out what their specific style guide says on the matter. In that sense, the list of guides is useful for an encyclopedia, even if others will not want to read through the entire style guide section.
 * I agree about the title. However, there is a record of some lengthy arguments over the title in the archives. There may be a better title out there, but this page is "linked to" by many other articles now, so any change of the title will have to be considered carefully before arbitrary changes. That's not to say it shouldn't be done if you have a good idea.
 * I'd like for the article to reach FA status. To do that, it can't be POV, so if there is POV, it will need to be taken out. However, it cannot be an FA unless it is useful for all readers, even average readers (who don't care about the typography in the 1750s, they just want to know what the convention is). If we write this article in an ambiguous way that suggestst that there is no convention, and no references say anything conclusive on the subject - it will prove of no use for the average reader. To be honest, I don't know if it will be possible to ever get it to FA status. As noted, many Americans are emotionally attached to the double-space convention. There are also many that argue that style guides are irrelevant (that's happened already), and I'm sure other arguments will come up in the face of the evidence, which is most simply stated as "go to any bookstore and pick up a book, magazine, or newspaper). Some people aren't interested in the facts and what sources say on the subject. Worse, some are not interested in improving articles like this - but only in tearing them down to fit their preferences and tastes. Some will come here, discover that their position was untenable, and vandalize in response - or try to "make it go away" because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've seen that in a few other articles here. In that light, I can only (hopefully with some help) provide reliable references for every sentence that's within the article that could possibly be challenged (almost all of them), and keep plugging away.
 * Thanks for the feedback. Come back soon and let me/us know how it's coming. It has a long way to go. Airborne84 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)