User:Darkfrog24/sandbox

The Wikipedia manual of style should be changed to permit American English punctuation in articles written in American English.

The MoS currently requires that all articles on Wikipedia follow British punctuation conventions even if they are otherwise written in other national varieties of English. This rule, WP:LQ, is the most frequently challenged part of the MoS, and as of 2015 it is still in place, but the preponderance of logical arguments and reliable sources do not support it. Instead, we should have a punctuation rule based on WP:ENGVAR.

Background
In American English, periods and commas are placed inside adjacent closing quotation marks in almost all cases. WP: LQ states that periods and commas should be placed inside the quotation marks if they apply to the quoted material and left outside if they apply to the whole sentences, like question marks and exclamation points. This is consistent with the rules of British English.

Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "The Boss," performed "American Skin." (American style)

Eric Clapton, nicknamed "God", performed "Cocaine". (British style)

British style is popular among linguists and programmers, who find that it appeals to their sense of logic. It is also popular among many Wikipedians for the same reason. However, the use of British style in American English is not supported by reliable sources or by actual practice.

History on Wikipedia
This rule was initially proposed as part of a compromise. The participants in this conversation believed that American English required only double quotation marks and British required only single (this is not true: British English allows both), so a split-the-difference deal was struck, and the early MoS required "American" double quotation marks but British period-and-comma placement.[]

WP:LQ is challenged roughly once a year, more than any other part of the Manual of Style. A partial list of RfCs and other discussions is housed at the Manual of Style Register.

American-British divide
Many of the supporters of the ban claim that British punctuation is really "logical" and American punctuation is really "typesetters." These two systems also have other names (British style is called "logical" by a large minority of sources, but all other names for American style are extremely rare), but British and American are the two most common names for these practices by far. A majority of British English writers use British punctuation, and a vast majority of American English writers use American. (Australian English tends to follow British conventions, and Canadian English can go either way.)

A few Wikipedians believe that logical is really a separate style that merely happens to be similar to British style, but the sources treat the terms as interchangeable.

Are there exceptions? Yes. The style guide of the American Chemical Society is probably the most respected American style guide that requires British practice, and the British newspaper The Guardian requires American. But then, the occasional Texas sign reading "Town Centre" or Somerset teacher's note about a student's "behavior" do not mean that the –tre spelling system isn't British or that the –or spelling isn't American.

It is more common for British publications to use American style than for American publications to use British. Most of the American style guides that require British punctuation are designed for specialized kinds of writing, like computer programming or literary criticism. Even then, these things are rarely universal. Among U.S. science style guides, ACS requires British, but the style guides of the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association require American. NASA uses American style (by copying the Chicago Manual of Style). Among U.S. legal style guides, the ALA and Blue Book require American. If we look at only the American style guides that deal with general-audience writing, the kind of writing found on Wikipedia, then they pretty much all require American-style punctuation.

Commonality
So the question is if American punctuation is somewhat accepted in formal British English, but British punctuation isn't accepted in formal American English, and we're only using one system, why aren't we using the one that's accepted in both camps?

Allowing both systems is consistent with WP:VERIFIABILITY
Because the effects of the Manual of Style are felt on so many articles, it is even more important that its content be verifiable and correct.

The main reason why Wikipedia should permit American punctuation on an ENGVAR basis is the same reason that governs most of Wikipedia's content: verifiability. Almost every American English style guide requires American style punctuation. The majority of British English style guides requires British style punctuation. Almost every source that discusses the two systems refers to them as "American" and "British." Almost all English and writing classes teach their students the style that matches the national variety.

Correct punctuation increases Wikipedia's credibility
Another reason to allow correct American punctuation in American English articles is the same reason that we allow correct spelling and formatting: It makes Wikipedia look reliable and trustworthy. It has the added benefit of allowing professional and semiprofessional writers to contribute to Wikipedia without dumbing down their skills. Even nonprofessionals spend years learning writing in school, and requiring editors to use incorrect techniques on purpose is pretty darn mean.

American punctuation is better for team projects
American punctuation has one non-subjective advantage: copy editing is easier and faster, especially when the work is edited by more than one person. Rather than having to stop and evaluate whether a comma should go in or outside of the quotation marks or return to the source material to determine whether it was present in the original quotation, the editor can place it inside the quotation marks and proceed to the next issue.

Imagine that one editor, an expert on the article's subject, consults his or her books and adds good material to an article, but, more concerned with facts than with presentation, does not spend much time on punctuation. Under the current rule, other editors who come in to gnome have to look at the original text&mdash;which might be a paper book on our first Wikieditor's shelf&mdash;or stop and consider complex grammatical rules to tell which characters need to be moved. The American system makes this part of the job much surer.

WP:LQ has low compliance
WP:LQ isn't just frequently challenged; it's also frequently disregarded. Trips through "random article" show that some articles use American punctuation and some use British. Many use a mixture of both. Even featured articles often use American punctuation on their big day:
 * Polyozellus
 * Hurricane Rick
 * Battle of Osan
 * Hurricane Danny
 * J.C.W. Beckham
 * The Green, Dartmouth College

In contrast, WP:ENGVAR is a proven policy with strong compliance.

The claim that AQ causes errors and misquotations is unfounded
At one point, the MoS listed a desire to avoid "ambiguity, misquotation, and introduction of errors in subsequent editing" as its rationale for WP:LQ. However, there is no evidence showing that American English actually causes any of these problems and a small amount of evidence actively showing that it does not.

Absence of evidence
First, there is currently no published study that demonstrates that either punctuation system is superior to the other with respect to reading comprehension. Like with spelling, the difference between British and American English is largely aesthetic rather than functional.

Second, there is one thing that most of the professional and linguistic articles that argue that British style is superior to American have in common ...or rather, something that they don't have in common. They don't actually give examples of American punctuation causing any problems on a practical level. Some of these articles can get pretty vehement, so why aren't the authors telling us about the hundreds of real-life mistakes that can be attributed to American punctuation?

Because these errors are very, very rare.

Just about every rule in English is going to trip people up sooner or later, but, under real-world and real-Wikipedia conditions, problems caused by American punctuation or, to use some wording that used to be in the Wikipedia MoS, "ambiguity, misquotation, and introduction of errors in subsequent editing" don't generally occur.

There is also the argument that American punctuation causes errors just by being itself, that, because every character inside the quotation marks must be part of the quoted material, then those periods and commas are errors by default. The problem with this is that, in American English, there is no claim that every character inside the quotation marks must be part of the quoted material. If the teacher writes on the board She said "apples," "peaches," and "pears," then the students learn that the commas are part of the process, not part of the content. The only people who are likely to be confused by this are people who are still learning to read in English, and they are best served by a Wikipedia that shows the most correct form of the language as it actually is.

For example, people are even less likely to think that the comma is part of the quoted material than they are to think that "centre" is pronounced "sen-treh." The –tre spelling is somewhat counterintuitive (especially in rhotic accents), but British writers haven't abandoned it. This is not because they are reactionaries who hate logical spelling but because the British spelling system works.

Evidence of absence
The fourteenth edition of the Chicago Manual of Style reads as follows: "In defense of nearly a century and a half of the American style, however, it may be said that it seems to have been working fairly well and has not resulted in serious miscommunication. Whereas there clearly is some risk with question marks and exclamation points, there seems little likelihood that readers will be misled concerning the period or comma."

If the issue is verifiability, then the statement "American punctuation does not cause problems under actual use" is acceptable for use in the Wikipedia article space, and the statement "American punctuation causes miscommunication" is not.

Summing up
Some people find the British style more appealing because it feels more logical to them or even because they think it looks better aesthetically, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, the truly logical way to write is the way that will be understood by one's readers and earn their confidence. In British English articles, that usually means leaving commas outside closing quotation marks, but in American English articles, it means tucking them in. Wikipedia editors should at the very least be allowed to punctuate their work in a manner that is correct with respect to the rest of the article.