User talk:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register


 * WARNING: This talk page features the profane use of language which is not inherently profane.  Reader discretion is advised.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of the Register
So it's a "supplement" to the MoS ... but what the hell is it for? Someone please tell us in the lead? Tony  (talk)  10:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Style of contents
After I set up the basic structure of this Register, with headings and subheadings in parallel with those in the Manual of Style, I added some links under "See also", and I added, in the first section, a list of links to past discussions. This style differs from that of contributions in other sections of the Register, which are closer to the style recommended by Noetica, but my style should not dissuade others from continuing their contributions in that style. They might be able to use the links which I have listed in the first section to generate one or more paragraphs similar in style to the ones already added. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Curly (directional) quotes
This is the 21st century (now with Unicode!), no longer the typewriter age, when straight quotes were introduced out of meagerness. We really should move to curly quotes (and apostrophe). Those who cannot type them should use the HTML entities &amp;lsquo; &amp;rdquo; etc. – Kaihsu (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to change the current recommendation to curly quotes. Is this a good idea? – Kaihsu (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you wish to discuss the guideline, please start a new section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. First, please search the archives for previous discussions about the same guideline.—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of [R] in MOS
The link Mos works, but Mos doesn't. This is because the section has an [R] link to its right. The [R] also - IMHO - messes up the TOC - see Mos.

Could and should anything be done, to improve these IMHO unwanted & undesirable side-effects? Trafford09 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A shortcut, similar to WP:HYPHEN, would work.—Wavelength (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. How would one use the hyphen, please? Would you give an example?

As for the [R] links, would the hyphen also stop the [R]s being included in the TOC? Trafford09 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh - I think I see what you mean. But are the [R]s really needed? Trafford09 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Junior and Senior in names of people
Is there a standard or style for proper names of people? For example, John Doe (junior) or John Doe (Junior) or John Doe, Junior or the American style John Doe, Jr.? Same for Senior?

See the questionable John Bell (Junior), and I know I will find other examples.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone here doesn't know, the more obvious place to ask would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted here, and then I realized that I was in the wrong place. I am being answered at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Purpose
I pulled this sentence out of the archive "How is a MOS consensus to be recorded, for all editors to see?-- Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)"

That strikes me as an odd question. In the MOS obviously. No one other than a historian cares what the details of the decision were and who discussed it and what they were thinking when they proposed it. We have a page. We record consensus changes in that page by making those changes. We can use an edit summary if we wish. There is always a time stamp in the history and anyone interested can easily go to the archive to find where or when that issue was discussed. But linking to decisions in the MOS itself is not something that I would recommend. I have no problem with treating this page sort of as an index to the archives, but nothing more than that, and not like what we would call a reference in article space. Most of the MOS is there because of common sense, not because of 57 Arbcom rulings. Or 1. And most editors could care less why it says what it does. It is hard enough to try to get them to care about what it says - and follow that advice. Apteva (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked that question in a section now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 113. When I did so, I linked to a revision starting the subsection now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 112, in which revision Noetica had asked the same question.  Those two links provide adequate context to explain the purpose of the Register.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect nominated for deletion
I have nominated the redirect Manual of style register for deletion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4. Regards, John Vandenberg (chat) 16:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing POV
Deliberately using a rare name instead of the common one, especially when the rarer name has a strong positive or negative connotation and the common one does not, is non-neutral POV. Listing the primary name as if it were the secondary name is non-neutral POV. On a practical level, using rare names also makes the subject harder to recognize. Saying that something is merely "more common" when it is almost universally required is non-neutral POV.

For these reasons, we should refer to the British rule as first "British" and then "logical," though there is no need to go into further detail. Most sources say "British" but a significant minority say "logical." We should refer to the American rule as "American" because almost all sources call it by that name and because all other names for this practice are rare.

Ask yourself "Why wouldn't we list the most common name first?" and if you answer is something like "I approve of the other name more" or "I believe that the sources use the wrong name" or almost anything else that starts with "I" instead of "the sources," then please consider further reflection on this matter.

I will provide sources upon request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, per your point about matching what the MoS says, I've kept your word order while maintaining accuracy, but I really think mine was better. "What the MoS calls 'logical quotation'" can be read as saying that it was made up for the MoS, and however I may dislike this rule, that's not exactly what happened.  "What is called 'British style' and 'logical quotation'" places the most common name first without unduly minimizing the secondary name.
 * American style, however, does not have a common secondary name. "Typographer's" is so rare that it could be construed as trivia. Lists of rare names for these practices belong in the article space, if there.  If you have a reason other than personal preference for the changes you've made, please say what it is.  If it's that you don't believe that "British" and "American" are the most common names, I will of course provide sources showing this.  You do not have to take my word for it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Searches that I'm running for "typographer" and "quotation mark" are giving me hits for smart/curly quotes (vs straight): CMoS Tweed Editing Adobe Forums Same deal for "typographer" and "punctuation" GetItWrite If you say you've seen that term used to refer to American style punctuation once or twice then I believe you but I'm only seeing this other meaning. It's not going to be readily recognizable as tuck-in-the-commas punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Should I assume that you haven't seen these threads?
 * The register should not say the system is "sometimes" called British style. It is usually called British style and sometimes called logical style.  Your phrasing makes it look like "British" is the less common name and it's not.
 * Stop using the term "typographer's" for American style. See above.  That term does not mean what you think it means or at the very least, what you think it means is not its primary meaning.  American style is almost always called "American." While "logical" is still common enough that a mention here would have value, none of the other names for American style are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So that's the reason not to use "typographer's." Here are some reasons to use "American" and "British." Here are some of the many sources that refer to these styles as "American" and "British":
 * Scientific Style and Format (CBE): In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed according to the sense. ... In the American style, the following rules apply to the placement of closing quotation marks..."
 * Official blog of the style guide of the American Psychological Association: "American style": "Place periods and commas... inside quotation marks." "British style": "Place periods and commas... outside quotation marks."
 * Oxford Dictionaries: "[I]n American English, ... Any punctuation associated with the word or phrase in question should come before the closing quotation mark or marks ... In British English, the usual style is to use single quotation marks, while any associated punctuation is placed outside the closing quotation mark."
 * Chicago Manual of Style, 14th edition: "When a declarative or an imperative sentence is enclosed in quotation marks, the period ending the sentence is, in what may be called the American style, placed inside the closing quotation mark. If the quoted sentence is included within another sentence, its terminal period is omitted or replaced by a comma, as required, unless it comes at the end of the including sentence. In the latter case, a single period serves both sentences and is placed inside the closing quotation mark. ... The British style of positioning periods and commas in relation to the closing quotation mark is based on the same logic that in the American system governs the placement of question marks and exclamation points; if they belong to the quoted material, they are placed within the closing quotation mark; if they belong to the including sentence as a whole, they are placed after the quotation mark."
 * The Punctuation Guide "The above examples also show that the American style places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, even if they are not in the original material. British style (more sensibly) places unquoted periods and commas outside the quotation marks." (So we see that even sources that don't like American style still use this name).
 * Oxford Guide to Style "British practice is normally to enclose quoted matter between single quotation marks ... uniformly in US practice..."
 * Webster's New World Punctuation: Simplified and Applied "In the American system ... the comma appears inside the quotation mark." p.94-95; "In the British system, the period or comma is placed outside the quotation." p. 95
 * So we've got sources that range from top RS to blogs, from both sides of the Atlantic. I can provide more if needed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not an article. How are sources relevant here?  But for fun, look at this one where an American argues for logical quote style in a British publication, in 1896.  He says the "certainly erroneous" illogical style that he's complaining about is not much done in America, so I guess the American style is not as "traditional" as some sources say.  And The Inland Printer/American Lithographer has an interesting semi-logical rule, founded mostly on the typographer's opinion of  how it looks, plus a nod to logic.  Is this because he's American?  Or not American enough?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are relevant here because we're making assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Don't use "this isn't an article" to say "I'm going to do things that I can't get away with in an article." We've both said that POV is an issue, so let's follow WP:NPOV.
 * These sources are interesting but 1) they're both from the 1800s and 2) they don't actually weigh in on the issue at hand, which is what to call British and American style.
 * Actually, looking at old sources is fun for me, so I'd be non-sarcastically delighted. Please look at your 1896 source more closely.  It says that it's "certainly erroneous" and not done in America to put a colon or semicolon inside the quotation marks.  British and American English don't currently differ on that point. The Inland Printer does indeed say to use American style, but this doesn't really tell us much because it's from 1894.  Since what is now the British style first caught on after being promoted in The King's English in 1908, I'm not surprised that it says to use American style; it's what everyone used to use.  The fact that English changes over time is not contested.
 * I have zero problem not calling American style "traditional" because that's a rare name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I've identified the relevant passages: Per WP:NPOV, we should use the most common name in RS even if some editors think it's biased (just in case there's confusion, I don't think "American" and "British" are biased but you've made it clear that you do) per WP:POVNAMING. We should indicate the relative prominence of opposing viewpoints per the last line of WP:ASSERT, which here means saying that the name "British" is more common than "logical" (implying it with word order is sufficient in my book), that almost all American style guides require American style, etc. Per the sources I showed above, "typographer's quotes" means curly quotes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what those policies about article content have to do with this meta-page. Quite a stretch.  Sorry about my "typo", where I meant typesetters, not typographers.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These policies apply to assertions of fact made in Wikipedia's voice.
 * For example, WP:NPOV does not cover essays because it is made clear that each essay is the opinion of one or a few individuals and not of Wikipedia. You could argue that WP:NPOV does not apply to the parts of the MoS that say "do this" (I don't agree, but you could argue it) because those are instructions and not claims that anything is factually true.  Neither of those things are the case with MOS:REGISTER. (Unfortunately, this isn't like the MOS proper where we could just remove the claim and post a link to the article space.  We do have to give some explanation of what everyone keeps fighting about and why.)
 * If you want to include an alternate name for American style, please show sources or other evidence indicating that it is common enough to be readily recognizable. For example, I've seen "international style" used to apply to both British and American, but I've seen each instance just once.  I could get behind using the term paper rule: How many independent sources (not copies of each other) refer to it by that name?  The most common name should still be listed first, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Search for "typesetter" and "quotation mark":
 * This one's just a forum, but the person is using that expression to mean "curly quotes." It seems to be reproduced on multiple sites.
 * Copy Editor's Handbook Found this one while looking for "typesetter" sources. It says "...recommend what is called American style ... a period or comma goes inside the closing quotation mark."
 * This one's also a forum. It gives "American" as the primary name and adds "referred to by some as typesetter style."
 * Another forum. Again, it gives "American" too.
 * So what turned up in a ten-minute web search was that this term is used in forums, and not consistently, but there might be more. Can you find any RS that use this name? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DIY Guide: How to Publish Your Own E-book (2004, British) This one also uses "typesetters" to mean curly quotes: "...converted to curly typesetter's quote marks..." This doesn't look like the best book but it's not a forum.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Betweenborders.com We'd have to check to see whether this website counts as RS or as a blog or forum, but it says they're curly quotes. "Typesetter’s quote marks (ie the ‘66’ and ‘99’ versions of apostrophes, speech delimiters and the like rather than the inverted tear-drop character familiar to we former typewriter-users)" Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Passport Music ForumFound another forum that uses "typesetter's" to mean "American" (while also calling the practice "American")
 * Get Text Found another site that uses "typesetter's" to mean "curly quotes."
 * (unrelated) Found our own SmC giving a book review. ADORBS.
 * Atari Magazines looks RS and uses this term to mean "curly quotes."
 * Opinionista Here's an Opinionista article that uses "typesetters" to mean "American style." As usual, it also uses the term "American," and cursory examination says it's sub-RS, in this case a blog. (NOTE: If you want to check and see if it fits WP:SPS, go ahead.)
 * Stack Exchange This is a reply to a forum thread: "The American style is to put the punctuation inside the quotes. The American version is often known as 'Typesetter's Quotes'."
 * The Robin Williams Mac OS X Book: Jaguar Edition uses "typesetters" to mean "curly quotes." (inferred from context)
 * University of Bayreuth Okay, this might be RS. It's a two-page style sheet that says the following: "For English articles  we  follow  the  Chicago  Manual  of  Style.  Please  use  American English  in  Typesetter’s  style  (for  example:  “Quote,”)." All original punctuation preserved.  Please note that this example includes both American comma-inside and curly quotes.  I do have to wonder why the comma's there if they're not trying to say "typesetters is American comma placement." This source does have limitations, but I'm casting a wide net, so let's count this as inferred. EDIT: Figured out what was bothering me.  They didn't remember not to capitalize the T in "typesetter's." Small mistakes like that make me question the reliability of the source.  But, like I said, wide net.
 * From what I've found so far, using "typesetter's" to mean "American style" is common enough on sub-reliable sites&mdash;people do say this term in the way you've described&mdash;but so is using it to mean "curly quotes." If we look only at RS, it is used to mean "curly quotes" with one exception, a style sheet from a German university of musical theater. For both RS and sub-RS, the term "American" is still more common. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing the usual challenge to WP:LQ
I do consider this change substantive but I did not expect that it would be controversial.

The paragraph in question already gives a neutral, just-the-facts summary of what people usually say in these debates (with the goal being that a person on either side could read it without anger and say "That is accurate; that is what happens.") I read it again and realized that a newcomer to MOS:R might assume that the challenger usually suggests eliminating WP:LQ or discarding British style for American exclusively. Since it's not necessarily obvious that that is not the case, I wrote what I considered to be a neutral, just-the-facts summary of the usual objection that would match the rest of the paragraph:

I see this as well within the MOS:REGISTER's purpose of recording consensus and attempts to change consensus. Remember, when a challenger comes to WT:MOS, supporters of WP:LQ usually say "Read MOS:REGISTER to see whether your issue has already been addressed." This puts the usual issue front and center. Would anyone care to suggest another wording that would accomplish this goal?

In case it's not clear: The way I see it, it is not the purpose of MOS:REGISTER to argue for or against either side but rather to clearly state facts. "The challenger usually argues ENGVAR" is a fact, and I see it as a relevant one. To my eyes, that fact is stated in a neutral manner. If anyone thinks it could be more neutral, please suggest a wording. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you have been relentlessly trying to undermine the consensus for LQ by first presenting it as an American/British issue and then using that to tie it to ENGVAR. I think it is inappropriate that you write this summary, as the most vocal antagonist to the current consensus.  You're too biased, too vocal, too pushy, etc.  Back off.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Providing challengers with information that happens to make them less likely to challenge the MoS is not undermining consensus. As for bias, a good way to keep it out is to follow what the sources say.  As you can see, I'm game for that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, maybe, but this sure sounds like a misreprentation of your intent, given everything else that's clear about your recent behavior.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AGF, Dicklyon, but let me make it a little easier for you to do so: Remember that "my recent behavior" is saying, on the talk page, that WP:LQ should be changed, that I said so after someone else brought it up first and that I provided sources to prove that it wasn't just my own whim. Respecting consensus means that I'm not allowed to disregard the rules the article space.  It doesn't mean I'm not allowed to try to get the rules changed through the procedures that Wikipedia has established for that specific purpose.
 * Also consider this: I've been accused of WP:POINT and of breaking other rules, usually falsely. I've also seen admins say that they didn't want to bother reading through SMC's and my posts to figure out who was right.  If anyone ever tries to accuse me of breaking the rules, I want to have a few diffs I can point to and say, "See?  I'm expressly trying not to disrupt things.  I want this rule changed but I want it changed fairly." It helps that that's true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)