User:A Fellow Editor/sandbox/Quote punks

Commas at end of quotes?
Wikipedia's standard of insisting that commas come after quotation marks (at end of quotes) strikes me as odd (as an American), and runs contrary to regular norms of usage, at least in American English.


 * American standard usage: She said, "Punctuation styles on Wikipedia change too often," and made other complaints.
 * Wikipedia standard: She said, "Punctuation styles on Wikipedia change too often", and made other complaints.

Shouldn't this policy be re-considered--at least for articles written in American English? It runs so counter to what we are normally supposed to do in the United States. [] Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The US Council of Science Editors doesn't agree with you. See Scientific Style and Format, 8th ed., University of Chicago Press, 2014. Tony   (talk)  05:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, isn't Scientific Style and Format British? It says "Cambridge Press." Are there two books of the same name?  Or did the U.S. Council adopt a British book?  Here's a link   Okay, it's looking like there are two books.  Just to confirm, Tony.  You've laid eyes on the CSE SSF and not just the CBE one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you review the archives on this. Logical quotation has been debated, extensively. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "extensively" is, if anything, an understatement; reams of text and hours of editors' time have been spent on this topic, and have always ended up with no consensus to change current policy. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. But, what works in a scientific study, may not be ideal a humanities-related text.  Admittedly, I come from the humanities end of things (as an American).  This whole thing just runs contrary to everything I've ever been taught, and it could cause Wikipedia to become in many peoples' minds (at least here in America) considered a bad grammatical influence.  Rather than having the one-shoe-fits-all approach, Wikipedia could develop guidelines can applied in different contexts, i.e. American English, British English, scientific, humanities, etc.  Just a thought. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We do have such a guideline at WP:ENGVAR. The problem with your suggestion is that the notion of logical quotation is not so obviously or heavily tied to a particular variation of English as you seem to think. (This is besides its other value: That it is clear, when used, whether particular punctuation is part of a quotation or not.) --Izno (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As for other rules, unless the MOS has a proscription or prescription, you are free to write as you would using other contexts. However, remember that we're not writing for Dr. John Smith but for Mr. Joe Schmoe, and the odds of writing with one of those persons also leans to the latter. Introducing specialist style can cause conflict. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, you are entirely correct. While there are one or two U.S. style guides that require British style, which the others here prefer to call "logical style," the overwhelming majority require American style. Most of the ones that allow British style are specialist style guides, such as those for chemistry or literary criticism, which isn't the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia anyway (You'll notice that Tony1 cites a style guide for science journal articles). Yes, this rule should be changed, and I'd support an RfC to that effect. American style guides that require American style include pretty much all the mainstream ones: The AP Style Book, pretty much all versions of the Chicago Manual of StyleChicago Manual of Style, 14th ed, the style guides of the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, MLA, Turabian, even NASA... We have pretty much zero reason to require British/logical style in American English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now there has also been some confusion as to how American American style is and how British British style is. What Tony1 and Izno are really talking about is that British English allows American style a lot more often than American English allows British style.  You can pick up a reputable British newspaper and might find that it uses American punctuation placement, but you're not really going to see the reverse.  So while you might be able to make the case that we should let Wikieditors use American style in British English articles, requiring them to use British punctuation in American articles doesn't have that kind of precedent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing: This rule might be longstanding, but it's regularly ignored. It has low compliance in the article space.  A couple years ago, I counted how many featured articles, which are supposed to be our most polished, used British style on the day they were featured, and the percentage was in the sixties.  It's a lot lower in non-featured articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, though, it's not so much ignored as it is unknown. I.e. I don't think many editors are snubbing a rule they don't believe in; rather, it just doesn't occur to an American editor that this could be the rule.  I find it to be unique among Wikipedia elements of style in its lack of accommodation of regional variation, and when it was pointed out to me after about 3 years of Wikipedia editing, I was astonished.  Ever since, though, I've been using logical punctuation.  (I haven't read all those arguments that apparently say, contrary to what I've thought I've known in decades of studying and writing English, that logical quotation is common in the US.  So I still use the American version in everything but Wikipedia).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is that changing the rule to allow American style (where appropriate) on Wikipedia wouldn't disrupt anything because for whatever reason WP:LQ isn't being followed to begin with. The other upshot is that the longstanding presence of American style on Wikipedia proves that American style doesn't cause problems in editing or reading comprehension, as has been alleged in previous discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On this basis, why isn't "British" style for acronyms and initialisms allowed by the MoS? Sometimes compromises must be made on the basis of WP:COMMONALITY, and just as I'd rather write "Isil" rather than "ISIL", others might rather write with "American" inverted comma style as opposed to "logical style". However, an editorial decision in favour of uniformity has been made in the MoS, and it has stuck. I can't write "Isil", nor use "American" inverted comma style. There is nothing inherently wrong in this sort of decision. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, RG, British English allows both "Isil" and "ISIL," the way it allows both 'quotes' and "quotes." American English does not allow British comma placement. If you write "ISIL," you're still using neat and correct British English.  If you write "quotes", you're using sloppy and incorrect American English.  The MoS puts Wikieditors in a position in which they either have to break the MoS's rules or have to break standard English rules, and it's entirely unnecessary.  But if you think the ban on "Isil" is unnecessary, then you've every right to try to get the rule changed.  I'd certainly hear any case you'd make for allowing both.  I think there may have been one a few months back, but I was a little busy at the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point. Yes, indeed, both "Isil" and "ISIL" are allowed in British English. Likewise, however, both "American" and "British" styles of inverted commas are allowed in American English. Examples of such a usage have been provided, even if they are not anywhere near representative of the majority. However, British English (and other national varieties of English) does not allow for "American" inverted comma style. For this reason, WP:COMMONALITY applies. If there is a usage that is used in all varieties of English, even if it is not the majority usage in all varieties, that usage should be chosen. That is why "Isil" is prohibited, and why the "American" style of inverted commas is prohibited. It makes perfect sense, and reduces conflict. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RG, you have that backwards. Tony and the others have cited cases of mainstream, professional British publications (like newspapers) using American-style punctuation, but you don't see mainstream, professional American publications that use British.  Per WP:COMMONALITY, we should be using American style, though frankly, I don't see why we can't allow both British and American on Wikipedia, per ENGVAR (and also per WP:COMMONALITY, "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia"). Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did "Tony and the others" cite cases of British publications having used "American" inverted comma style (in non-fiction)? In this discussion, they seem to have cited only American publications that use "British". RGloucester  — ☎ 18:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this discussion, Tony1 cited one style guide meant for scientific journal articls&mdash;which is not the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia. I believe it was Tony1 who said that the Guardian has been known to use American style, but it might have been SMcCandlish.  According to Butcher's Copy Editing, which I have seen cited on talk pages and in the article space but have not read myself, American style is common in British fiction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why I said "in non-fiction". We write non-fiction here, so usage in fiction is irrelevant. I read The Guardian on a regular basis, and have never seen it use the "American" style. The style of scientific journals is closer to the encyclopaedic register than is journalistic usage. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should follow sources and precedents that apply to the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia. Pretty much all of them say not to use British punctuation in American English writing.  If you believe that that should include science guides, then note that APA and AMA are both more widely used than SSF CSE, and they both require American style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not questioning that as to whether the "American" style is the majority usage in America. I'm merely suggesting that given the evidence that "British" or "logical" quotation is used by some American publications, and given its use across the rest of the English-speaking world, and given the advantages it has over "American" style in terms of accuracy, I see no reason why WP:COMMONALITY would not favour this variety, much as WP:COMMONALITY favours "ISIL" over "Isil". RGloucester  — ☎ 05:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * British style has no advantages over American in terms of accuracy. In none of our discussions have any of WP:LQ's supporters ever cited one case of American style causing any inaccuracies or misquotations anywhere on Wikipedia, even when directly asked, and yes, American style is common enough that there would be at least one.  For the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia, British style's advantages are imaginary.  But you don't have to take my word for it: Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed
 * Because "ISIL" is still correct in all varieties of English, and British punctuation is correct in some varieties and incorrect in others. If you write "quotes", in American English, you're wrong.  If you write "ISIL" in British English, you've merely selected from among correct options.
 * American does have advantages over British style that make it well-suited to Wikipedia in particular: Because it does not require access to the source material, it is easier for multiple editors to work on the same passage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(Moving the margin back to the left)... Can't Wiki just develop a contingency for different applications in the rules. If it turns out that British English allows more flexibility, as Darkfrog24 says, then why can't we? Don't get me wrong, either method has its merits, but in the United States we are taught in school to put our commas before the quotation marks, plain and simple. And, when people in the US see it done the another way, it looks glaringly incorrect to our eyes. Ultimately this isn't a matter of what certain highly specialized scientific stylesheets want, but what is established in popular usage (which Darkfrog24 indicated is the way we write at Wikipedia). We have a whole civilization (a nation of 240,000,000 people who speak and write American English according to certain widely established norms). Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S.: We shouldn't need a unanimous consensus to modify the rules because this is not an either/or (win/lose) situation. We can have it both ways, but just in different contexts.  So, there should be no gridlock to get in the way of doing what is best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is all rehash. We use logical quotation because it is precise. It is not "British quotation". There is no "British quotation", but multiple styles used in UK writing, and they are similar to but not identical to LQ in several ways. LQ exists as a separate style and is not regional. It evolved independently in and coalesced into a recognizable style from multiple fields, including technical writing, textual analysis, philosophy, and linguistics (and even the Chicago Manual of Style concedes its preferred use in these fields, including in American publications, and yes, even in the decades-obsolete 14th edition someone keeps citing for no apparent reason).  "ISIL" and "Isil" are not both regarded as correct by British English style guides. Rather, two British newspapers' style guides prefer "Isil", in defiance of all other British style guides.  This divergent lower-case style originates in broadcast journalism, where it was used with teleprompters to distinguish between acronyms that should be read aloud as words vs. initialisms to be spelled out. A couple of newspapers with a lowest-common-denominator approach to their audiences chose to "help" their readers this way. It's not a common style, a national style, a formal style, or an encyclopedic style. Even if it were a national style, MoS and WP would not be bound to use it. WP:ENGVAR applies when there's a  national tie, and when all other considerations are equal ("neighbour" vs. "neighbor", "auto boot and bonnet" vs. "car trunk and hood"), i.e. when there aren't any compelling reasons to prefer one style over another. When there is, we use whatever makes the most sense for Wikipedia's needs and audience (e.g. using double quotes then single quotes nested within them, not vice versa, for most purposes, because a single-quoted quotation with an apostrophe in it is hard to parse). There are reasons we use LQ, despite the existence of multiple other styles, and reasons we spell acronyms in all-caps, not sentence caps or small caps despite these other styles being attested, or we would not have had these conventions for a decade+ despite them being perennially questioned by those unaware of previous discussions or unwilling to accept consensus about these matters. We already covered most of this just within the last 30 days already. I'm of a mind to RfC a proposal for at least a 1-year moratorium on re-re-re-raising these matters, because it's disruptive to collaborative and constructive work on this guideline, and is the principle source of strife on this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's current rule absolutely is British, and reliable sources have been cited in this thread demonstrating this. If your position is that it is not really British, SmC, then cite better sources that say that Chicago MoS and AMA et al. are wrong.  Here is Oxford Dictionaries.  This is not a rhetorical proposition.  If there's a good reason why we should disregard professionally compiled style guides from both sides of the Atlantic, you should say what it is.
 * Almost all American style guides require American style, and the few that don't are specialist style guides, and almost all professional-level American English writing uses it. If that's not a strong national tie, then what is?
 * The reason Wikipedia uses LQ is because that's what computer programmers are used to, and the early MoS had a disproportionate number of programmers. Specifically, LQ was put in place as part of a split the difference deal between British and American punctuation.  The editors believed that British English always required single quotation marks (it doesn't) and said, "Okay, we'll use British comma placement and American double quotation marks." This rule got here because they believed it to be British!  British punctuation does not have any non-hypothetical advantage over American, and it has a few non-hypothetical disadvantages.
 * As for a moratorium, if it were the same person re-raising the same issue, that would be one thing, but that's not what's going on here. The fact that editors who don't know each other keep pointing out that WP:LQ violates the rules of American English does not mean that we should tell them they have to shut up.  It means we should change WP:LQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionaries link given above does not say that the positioning of commas and quote marks is the "British rule", and it is emphatically not. I am British and have both written and edited books and other publications in the 1980s and 1990s that used TQ – to my knowledge it was then used more often than LQ.
 * As it happens, I favour allowing the use of TQ or LQ (consistently) in articles, and supported this position in the last RfC. Confusing the issue with nationalist arguments, whether US vs. UK or whatever, is utterly counter-productive. Just stop. The good argument is that many editors – at the least most US and older UK editors – are used to TQ and it creates unnecessary work to "correct" it, and creates unnecessary friction to insist on it. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No one wants any strife--I certainly didn't make this well-intentioned inquiry to cause any hard feelings. However, if this is perpetually a continuous matter of debate year after year, then that means there is something that desperately needs to be re-visited in the policies.  Putting a moratorium on discussion of the issue isn't going to make the matter go away--putting a lid on it would be far more counter-productive.  I have said that the polices can allow for just enough flexibility for us all to go home happy--and that would eliminate these annual debates on the topic.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Oxford link says "in American English, single or double quotation marks are acceptable but it's important to stick to one way or the other throughout a piece of writing. Any punctuation associated with the word or phrase in question should come before the closing quotation mark or marks" and "In British English, the usual style is to use single quotation marks, while any associated punctuation is placed outside the closing quotation mark." It's easy to miss. Chicago 14 is a lot clearer.  The CBE Scientific Style and Format is also clear: "In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."
 * As you can see, reliable sources from both the U.S. and U.K. describe these styles as "American" and "British." I am not "confusing the issue" by pretending that there is a national split; I'm offering sources that show that there really is a national split. I do not expect you or anyone to just take my word for it&mdash;and please take that as the respect that it is meant to be.  What I am asking of you, Peter C, is that while you are absolutely within your rights to believe that Chicago, Oxford, etc. are wrong on this point, please accept that that is your personal belief and not fact.  You should not act as though I'm making it up.  I've proven that I'm not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that, per your own experience, British English allows American punctuation. That doesn't mean it's not American.  Let me offer my experience and tell you that American English does not allow British punctuation.  What this means, if our experience is representative, is that American English only allows its own system while British English allows both.  I could support a change in WP:LQ to reflect that.
 * Per your point that the current WP:LQ alienates the kind of editors whom we want to gnome our punctuation, I also agree. While I'd prefer some kind of ENGVAR-based rule, I'd certainly consider a case-by-case rule to be an improvement over our current situation.  I'd support the change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the first point, it's not what I am saying at all. TQ was the norm once, everywhere, since it was developed for typesetting. It's not "American" in any meaningful sense; it's the traditional style. In the UK, it has given way, mostly, to a form of LQ, but most publications are inconsistent (especially with commas and the end quote marks for direct speech).
 * Much more importantly, you're just not hearing my second point: making this an ENGVAR or other kind of national issue alienates editors whose support is needed for a change. It's the impact on Wikipedia that matters and that needs to be the focus of the discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that it is American in meaningful senses. But you can change my mind: If you would like me to stop saying it, show me sources that outweigh the ones I've cited here.  If you either can't or don't feel like doing that, that's fine, but then stop asking me or anyone to stop saying it.
 * I'm not making this an ENGVAR issue. It just is one.  If you think that we shouldn't focus on the fact that there is a split between U.S. and British English on this matter, that's one thing, but you seemed to be maintaining that it does not exist, and it does.  I'd have no problem improving Wikipedia's punctuation rules in coalition with people whose views don't match my own exactly, but pretending that I believed something that isn't true would be unethical and would probably come back to bite.  If you personally find the sources I've shown here to be wrong or incomplete or otherwise not convincing, then that's your right, but do not insist that I share your position.
 * So as for common ground, how would you change WP:LQ? You know I'd like an ENGVAR-based rule, but what would yours look like? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, it is not uncommon to find both American/British and typographical/logical descriptions of these style differences. E.g. this book.  Sometimes that ones that call LQ British also mention that it is becoming more popular in America, like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yay, sources! Okay, yes, British style is common enough on blogs and message boards but not in the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia.  This second book you've cited, Preparing for Call Center Interviews expressly says that it's not used in formal writing, which is what we're after.  It also establishes that what you call "logical quotation" is British.  ...it also lists Jargon File as one of its own sources.  This book might not be properly researched.  The first book, Handbook for Typography for the Mathematical Sciences looks more reliable, but it is a specialist guide.  Again, it also specifically refers to the British rule as British: "But the rules are different in Britain." Neither of these supports WP:LQ in its current, use-British-in-all-articles form. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing: wouldn't we want to alleviate any unfair negative stigmas associated with Wikipedia? We've all heard the story about someone's teacher telling the class "You cannot use Wikipedia for research on your paper."  Why would we want to reinforce this unfair and negative attitude with the added perception that we use incorrect punctuation?  Maybe certain masters and PhD-level science classes use the Wiki quotation mark/comma configuration, but I can guarantee no one else in the United States does.  If any American high school science teacher were to ask the students to use punctuation contrary to that of the English Department's standards, he or she would be shown the door. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Break in long thread
I think the statement ... "'It's the impact on Wikipedia that matters and that needs to be the focus of the discussion.'" ... has merit. As long as it takes both readers and editors into account.

Personally, I may be inclined to allow both LQ and TQ as long as they are applied consistently within articles. Someone writing in an article within a technical subject (math and computing for instance) may prefer to use LQ for precision as the characters themselves within a quote may be distinctly relevant in addition to the spoken meaning of the text. However, in an article about, for example, American literature I'd say TQ would arguably be preferable as both consistent with the article's subject and as offering least surprise to readers schooled and acculturated via American humanities.

Why must there be a one-or-the-other over arching rule? Does such really serve the readership as a whole? Is the impulse to pick one option over the other and then sanctify it as Wiki wide policy perhaps tainted by an urge for aesthetic symmetry in the guidelines themselves? Is a desire to wrap-it-up-in-a-bow-and-have-it-settled perhaps more focused on the editing community than on the interests of readers at large?

Not that affect on editing is outside consideration. Just leaving TQ/LQ wide open without any recommendations at all would leave things open to endless recurring petty squabbles getting duked out (periodically on the same talk page of the same article even).

Perhaps give primacy to initial usage in an article unless consensus to do otherwise can be built on the article's talk page. Maybe qualify by also noting a preference for LQ in technical articles and TQ in humanities. If a variance does get debated, perhaps have a brief talk page hatnote noting the outcome and linking the archived discussion to discourage it immediately coming up again. Perhaps include the option to impose a moratorium on readdressing it so as to take contention hotspots into account. A template for such a hatnote might include a nice image to draw attention to it; maybe something peaceful like flapping wild ducks. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I stumbled into this essay. It came up at the top of a quick Google search. I'm surprised WP:LQUOTE hadn't already been linked given the nature of this thread. Meh, I found the it's-more-accurate-and-makes-better-sense aspects of that pretty convincing. I actually make a point to use LQ in my own writing regardless of formal or casual context simply because it makes more sense to me. But while one might argue that TQ is becoming increasingly antiquated, it's not antiquated yet. So Wikipedia's existing preference for LQ might be viewed as taking a lead role in establishing a new norm which embraces logic and reason over historical convention. Is this to be our role? I suppose it is if we choose it. While outside guidelines may inform our discussion we certainly are not bound by them. And choosing to adopt such a role in this case by no means binds us to do so in others.

In the past it appears a desire for accuracy and logical structure has superseded the urge to accommodate elements of outside convention as far as LQ vs. TQ policy on en:Wikipedia. If we are to back away from this now I'd strongly prefer that it be by allowing editorial discretion on an article-by-article basis rather than by simply inverting policy from LQ to TQ. Are there any arguments that TQ makes better sense for reasons other than those based on tradition and cultural familiarity? Debates about British/American provenance seem to be of relevance only if one seeks to shoehorn policy into a WP:ENGVAR context. The crux of the argument for allowing TQ seems to me to boil down to sensitivity to 'least surprise' in readers and editors acculturated to it, regardless of the provenance for such acculturation. Some English speakers/writers are acculturated to TQ some to LQ. The fact that such is the case seems to be of more relevance than the hows-n-whys-nuts-n-bolts of how they came to be so acculturated. While American and UK usage may exhibit preferences both also exhibit allowances for the other. Rather than forcibly trying to reduce each to a singular ideal for the purpose of then leveraging WP:ENGVAR perhaps we might consider that the amount of ambiguity and disagreement already in evidence may imply that WP:ENGVAR may bot be a well suited foundation upon which to build policy regarding LQ/TQ usage. Something to be considered perhaps, but not applicable as a hard fast deciding rule. I suggest looking to a balance of 'least surprise' for both readers and editors while also respecting a desire (in some cases 'need') for accuracy within quotes. If discretion is allowed on a per article basis WP:ENGVAR may be applied but isn't required to be. Same goes for tech vs. humanities or any other axis of preference. So again I'm suggesting primacy to initial usage with the option to modify via local consensus as policy with accompanying guidelines and suggestions as to how to form and manage such consensus (i.e. common stuff to consider, US/UK, tech/humanities).

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Related links

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Commas_at_end_of_quotes.3F


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Technical_considerations


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English#Logical_quotation


 * https://www.google.com/search?q=TQ+and+LQ+quotation+punctuation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Commas_at_end_of_quotes.3F


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#LQ


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency_within_articles