Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 86

Capitalization of definite article in musical group names
Respected U.S. and British authorities agree that the definite article should not be capitalized before names of music group, such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Who. Wikipedia articles are all over the place on this. A consistent policy in accord with the leading English-language stylists would be an improvement for Wikipedia.

The Chicago Manual of Style has an online Q&A forum in which this question has been asked and answered (the editors go for "the") (see http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/CapitalizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles34.html).

The Times (of London), on its online style guide (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2941-561,00.html), asks and answers this question (specifically, it happens, in reference to the Beatles), and goes for "the". Here is an excerpt: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence; similarly the Rolling Stones and the Manic Street Preachers etc."

The Guardian newspaper's online style guide, also coming out in favor of lowercase for bands (and, again, using the Beatles specifically as an example). An excerpt: "lc for newspapers (the Guardian), magazines (the New Statesman), pubs (the Coach and Horses), rock bands (the Beatles, the Black Eyed Peas, the The), sports grounds (the Oval)...." See http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184833,00.html and scroll down to "the." McTavidge 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the band. Yes, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, but clearly The Who. The difference is whether the the is properly part of the name or not. --Trovatore 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note by the way that The Times agrees -- here's the full entry on "Beatles" from your link above:
 * Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence; similarly the Rolling Stones and the Manic Street Preachers etc, but prefer to keep cap “T” with The Who and The The
 * --Trovatore 02:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how clear it is that "the" is any more part of the/The Who's name than it is part of the Beatles' name. Certainly the latter isn't referred to as "Beatles." Take "Wings," for instance, though never the Wings. Would it be The Band? This "rule" seems to have to do with whether the noun is plural -- the Rolling Stones, The Who. It's almost as if, for a plural-name band, you're adding up the individual members of the group and implicitly referring to each as a little Rolling Stone, an individual Beatle, a lone Manic Street Preacher, so that when you put them together, you have a collection of rocks, bugs, priests. Whereas if it's a singular name, the collective is indivisible, a monolith -- it's The Who, not a collection of little whos (from Hooville or anywhere else). (I'm just trying this out, thinking out loud.) Not striking me as a sound rationale. McTavidge 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's not so much whether the name is plural, per se, as whether the name makes sense as a noun phrase. "The Who" doesn't, so "The" seems more like part of the name. But there may not be a general rule, and there doesn't have to be a rationale -- it's case by case, depending on how the band's name is used or perceived. To answer your specific query, yes, I'm pretty sure it is The Band, which doesn't fit my rule of thumb, but does illustrate why it's case-by-case. So basically I'm opposed to treating the question in the MoS at all. Let the writers fight it out on the individual articles; they're the ones most likely to know which usage applies to a particular group. --Trovatore 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * McTavidge, I think you've inadvertently nailed it for the most part (Trovatore's caveat applying). Paul McCartney is in fact commonly referred to as "a Beatle", but Roger Daltrey is never referred to as "a Who". For whatever reason, if the band name is plural, it's usually just treated differently.  I agree with Trovatore that The Who are The Who, The The is The The, The Band is The Band, but the Beatles are the Beatles.  It's not WP's place to figure out why, it just is.  I wouldn't say it's a 100% hard-and-fast rule, but certainly a general one.  Exceptions would be made for extremly contrived names like The Presidents of the United States of America.  I'd capitalize the "The" in that, and the band members are not actually Presidents of the United States of America, after all, nor referred to as such. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm warming up a little to the notion that the definite article preceding a plural band name would not be capitalized whereas it would be for a singular one. However, the case-by-case thing will probably not work, as a practical matter; that is, it often won't result in consensus. In many instances, no particular usage has been agreed out there, and proponents of capital "t" and lowercase "t" will each find plenty of usage out there to support their positions. The Beatles are case in point. McTavidge 02:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, then say it is a hard and fast rule, except when the result would be something hopelessly ambiguous, as with the PotUSA example I gave? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's a hard and fast rule, except when the result would be something hopelessly ambiguous. (There, I said it.) :) So, where to go from here? McTavidge 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think case-by-case is fine, in fact the only approach that's even remotely defensible here. Sure, there'll be some cases where people will argue about it, maybe even edit war. We can't solve all those problems in the MoS, and we shouldn't try. Making centralized rulings about minutiae is a bad way to go, just on general principle, and in the specific case at hand we have the very real problem that some bands capitalize the the and some don't, and there isn't any rule. --Trovatore 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit tag
Can WP really tolerate the embarrassment of having a copyedit maintenance tag (which, frankly, seems deserved) on its Manual of Style? It has been there May 24, 2007. Finell (Talk) 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem ambivalent. I posted the tag, and I don't mind if it's removed, because the overhaul is clearly going to take longer than just a few days or weeks. Tony 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, as I said, the tag is deserved. The fact that it has remained this long indicates that the many Wikipedians who vet this project page agree, or at least do not disagree with sufficient conviction to remove it. Removing the tag would not bring the page up to Wikipedia's aspirational standard. I don't understand why the tag, if not its cause, has not prompted serous work to improve the page. Perhaps it is because the prospect is so daunting. For a start, the passive voice throughout the page makes the writing weak and vague: "Headings and subheadings are changed only after careful consideration ..." should be "Do not change headings without strong reasons and careful consideration ..."; "and subheadings" is surplusage, by the way, because all subheadings are headings. A manual is nothing if it is not prescriptive. There is no consistent style for examples. The writing is really embarrassingly poor—especially, and ironically, for a style guide. Finell (Talk) 05:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there's been major work over the past month—mainly copy-editing, but notably entirely new sections on hyphens and dashes, laboriously negotiated here. I have driven these changes with major major contributions from people here. I removed the tag just a few hours ago after your first message, perhaps because I misunderstood your intention; but in any case, I was coincidentally feeling that it's not necessary to have it there for months, when people are generally on-side about the need to overhaul the manual. I don't mind, however, if it's reinstated.
 * On the passive voice: yes, I discourage incautious use, especially by scientists, who seem to love it. But here, it's one of the ways of constructing clauses that are not orders or instructions; pre-copy-editing, there's an inconsistent use of imperative and descriptive tones that is still evident in what we haven't yet touched. The change in tone did receive consensus (archived now), because a friendlier, more inclusive tone is reckoned to be more likely to garner cooperation among WPians than orders. Thus, I feel that some use of the passive is appropriate here and on similar policy pages (FAC, FU, etc). I don't feel that it's "weak" or "vague" as you suggest. If you disagree, I'm happy to engage in a discussion here; convince me that we should go back to the ordering tone.
 * "Writing is embarrassingly poor"—Well, I hope not the stuff we've done recently, but fresh eyes to scrutinise that are welcome (as is another collaborator in the larger task of overhauling this central manual and its daughter manuals). My practice has been to post links on this page to draft sections that involve substantial copy-editing and/or substantive change in policy. Smaller edits I've sometimes risked without doing so. I think you're right about "subheadings", so why not take the plunge? Tony 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certifications
I didn't get any reply at MOS:CL, so I thought I'd bring this up here. Should RIAA certifications for albums such as the "P" in "Platinum" or "G" in "Gold" be capitalised (e.g. 2x platinum or 2x Platinum)? It's an adjective (which means it shouldn't be capitalised) but at the same time, the RIAA capitalise it, so it's also a trademark. If we treat it as a trademark, then it should be capitalised per WP:MOSTM. Spellcast 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe capitalization is the way to go here, via your reasoning. — The Storm Surfer 01:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many organisations capitalise erroneously in their publicity material. Unless it actually IS a registered trademark, or there is precedent in professionally-edited publications for capping these terms, I think we should stick to lower-case. Barnabypage 12:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php says: "The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards". So yes, it does qualify as a trademark and should thus be capitalised. Spellcast 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Barnabypage 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this is a proper name for a specific award. They aren't certifying the record element 79.  — The Storm Surfer 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Full stops (periods) after abbreviations with periods
I think the following should be added regarding abbreviations and puntuation: "When a period is used for an abbreviation at the end of a sentence, a second period is not needed to end the sentence. The one period serves both purposes." Lara Love T / C  05:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely my thought when I noticed this very phenomenon after I pressed the button on a recent edit of that section. Do you think that Dr and St need to be mentioned? Tony 06:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem was when editing an article which had "U.S." at the end of a sentence. I've seen text (not in WP) that used a period after the abbreviation, i.e. "John traveled to the U.S..", but I never thought it looked right. Searching through the MOS gave no insight. I then googled. I think using U.S. and St. as examples would be appropriate. Most countries don't use periods in their abbreviations, however, because US is also a word, U.S. should be used when referring to the United States--I believe this is mentioned in the MOS. I don't see "Dr." often being at the end of a sentence, however "St." often is. Lara Love  T / C  06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple solution WRT US is to ignore the old-fashioned incantations of some US guidelines (as do many Americans) and not use the dots at all. Looks much nicer. But if you insist on retaining u dot s dot, indeed, avoid double dots at the end of a sentence. On "Dr" and "St", I was raising the issue of whether there should ever be a dot after them. Tony 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you are saying. I think they should include a period after. As far as US, the guide recommends using "U.S." considering "us" is a word. Lara Love  T / C  04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now tell me, who is going to confuse "US" with the personal pronoun "us" (to start with, the upper- versus lower-case is in your face; second, the grammar would be palpably silly in every context I can think of). This is an international site, so while US styleguides are useful reference points for deciding on WP's policies, they have no special status. I could drag out the Australian Government Publishing Manual on the opposite side WRT to you dot es dot. Tony
 * No periods at all is a uniquely British thing, and one that just looks awful. The period is there for a purpose, and removing it make you look like you don't know that it's not a real word and only an abbreviation. If you want to use that style on articles that default to British English, fine, but it's absolutely inappropriate elsewhere. And stupid. DreamGuy 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Human readers do distinguish between US and us, but computer systems often don't (e.g. when searching)---that's why U.S. is written with periods.  The British tendency to avoid all periods is fairly recent.   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Periods have clearly fallen out of almost all US abbreviations (PBS, NASA, and thousands more); indeed, they're now quite rare. In the unlikely even that you need to search for the abbreviation of the United States, tick the "match case" option in your finder. Tony 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Passive Voice and Vague Attribution
Wikipedia articles contain an enormous number of lines that begin with, "It is believed...", or "It is thought...", or "It has been said...". Who is this mysterious IT? I am no grammarian, but passive wording like that changes the nature of what is being communicated because such wording is intended to be accepted at face value.

I could decide that I think the sky is lime green. I could then write a sentence in the Sky article that accurately states, "It is believed that Earth's sky is lime green." However, this does not mean that the sky is green. Such a statement only means that somebody (could be 90% of the world's sighted people, could be just me) thinks that the sky is green.

I think the manual of style should call for logical, clear structure that informs the reader just who it is that thinks this, believes that, or said such and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.171.248 (talk • contribs) 07:59, July 7, 2007
 * This belongs in the usage section, which I believe is ripe for expansion. But we'll need to be very cautious in doing so, because it will be easy to be accused of imposing one usage over others. Suggestions for inserting subsections should probably be raised here first for a week or so, to gather feedback and consensus. Tony 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And just as many articles contain phrases like "Critics contend..." or "Researchers claim...". The passive voice does not exist so people can make vague attributions; it exists to allow constructions where the subject is the semantic patient. Discouraging the passive voice is as ridiculous as discouraging the active voice.Strad 06:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You might take a look at Avoid weasel words and Words to avoid. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Strad. Andre (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dashes
Per discussion above, I have merged the only content that was in MOSDASH but not here, and then redirected MOSDASH to here. The article on dash is much better than what used to be in MOSDASH, actually. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you hit the MOSDASH link in the box at the top of MOS, it still takes you there. Tony 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I must have missed that. If you didn't actually click the link, try doing that and see if you get redirected back to the right section here.   If the link should be deleted, I'll do that instead. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the page doesn't exist, functionally, it should be deleted. Are you quite sure that all unique info has been retained in dash article or here at MOS? If so, remove the link from the box here and put a speedy delete notice at the top of the MOSDASH article. I suppose that it would be proper to announce your intentions on the talk page of MOSDASH for a ?week? I can't imagine anyone will object—it's such a bombsite and there's the messy duplication of information as is. This is the first step towards a properly organised hyphen and dash article in addition to what we now have here on MOS. Tony 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the link from style which is the box on this page. There has been an announcement on this page for a long time, so I think anyone who was following the pages would have noticed what was going on. The article on dash looks better than what was in MOSDASH, and the style guidelines have been rewritten here and MOSDASH was lagging behind them.  Rather than deleting the MOSDASH article, I have made it redirect to the proper section of this article. That has the benefit of preserving the edit history there. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just happened to go to WP:MOSDASH a few minutes ago, and for reasons I can't begin to guess I am redirected to the top of MOS rather than the relevant section. Hopefully someone can figure this out? — The Storm Surfer 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's odd - contents of the redirect are right and when I just tried it it worked. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly is odd. I tried it in Opera 9.20 Mac OS X and Firefox 2.0.0.4 Mac OS X, and it worked, so it must be some sort of Safari 2.0.4 Mac OS X bug or sensitivity.  Even more strangely, if I go to  and click on the redirect link, that works like a charm.  Oh well, curious, but not of great importance.  — The Storm Surfer 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The support of anchors in redirects is a relatively recent feature, and apparently still buggy. It's not a surprise that the link works correctly when click on directly, and not a surprise that the two-step method of getting to the page anchor via redirect fails on some browsers. Dicklyon 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about categorical lists
Are there any guidelines about categorized or hierarchical lists, specifically "Unsorted", "Miscellaneous" or "Other" headings? IMO this is far worse than a trivia section in an article, as the whole point of a categorized list is to organize by topic. For a specific example, I would like to point out List of vegetable oils (a featured list), with an "Other oils" section. This section will not be interesting for people to read. Just glancing at it, I see that further headings could be made for "Medicine", "Cosmetics" and "Insecticides".

These sections can make the article look unreliable (see:List_of_edible_seeds), and can also mean that the item does not meet the requirements of the list (see:List_of_fruits). I did put the Template:expert in those, which I know makes it look worse.

Could some guideline be made about this? I would love to have an unsorted template (like Template:Trivia) to put into such lists. My basic idea is this: if an item cannot be categorized it does not belong in a categorical list. JohnnyMrNinja 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is, or is to be, guidance on this, it would be in one of three places:


 * Lists
 * List guideline
 * Lists (stand-alone lists) (Manual of Style)


 * I've not looked at any of these, but if none address your question (I suspect none do), I suggest reposting your comment at one or more of the talk pages for these three guidelines. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, will do. JohnnyMrNinja 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New edits to en dash section
"The en dash was the traditional typographic symbol for this operator, but now that unicode defines a character for this specific use, the minus is preferred, except in fonts where it is too short. In contexts such as code, where the text is intended to be copied and executed or evaluated, the ordinary hyphen works better and is preferred."

Issues:
 * "operator" and subsequent singular number—it's two roles, isn't it? Operator and negative sign.
 * Why introduce the complication of fonts? Doesn't WP use just one font? Likewise, what exactly is "code", and do WPians normally use it in their contributions to WP?

Thanks for the edits, by the way. Tony 06:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I think both the unary operator and the binary operator are the same use, same glyph, same mathematical symbol and meaning, and both can be conveniently referred to as operators.  But if you'd like to treat them as distinct, feel free.  Fonts are not chosen by wikipedia, I think. I'm not sure what the problem is, but in my browser the minus comes out as short as the hyphen for any fonts that I've chosen; so my comment is probably moot, or wrong, or irrelevant.  There is a tag for code that makes text look like this:  ; it uses monospaced fonts, which don't have such a narrow hyphen, and is used where computer code is displayed. Dicklyon 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that the fact that there can be drawn a distinction between the two roles is being overlooked here. Doesn't WP use just one font? ... Go to "my preferences", go to "skin", click on some of the previews.  No, not only one, but I still wouldn't bother introducing this.  Code here would be refering to the type of stuff you find at m:Help:Calculation (which I'd mentioned to you, Tony) and it is used (it's very useful in templates).  However, it is possible to keep the hyphens within the code and convert to minuses for display (I might just write the template if it doesn't already exist). Jɪmp 16:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think it's a pity that the text has bloated in a way that isn't going to help your average WPian. Tony 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So be bold, and prune back to just what is useful, if you like. Dicklyon 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a technical dummy, so I need consensus among you people to do so. What's the disadvantage of removing the font/code stuff? Can't it be in the dash article? Tony 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out my font clause; the rest I think is OK, but I'll entertain edits by others. I think the code comment is more useful than the previous weasel words about "many scientists insist" or something like that, which was really about code. Dicklyon 18:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tables and trivia
I noticed that some MoS pages like When to use tables and Avoid trivia sections are not even mentioned or linked to from this main MoS page. Shouldn't they at least have an entry? heqs ·:. 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM: structural issue
In starting the job of overhauling this important submanual, I've realised that the main MOS is absolutely silent on numbers and dates. This is inconsistent with other aspects of style in which the information in submanuals is summarised in the main article. Apart from this inconsistency, there are two disadvantages in this situation: (1) there's nowhere in the main text here that links to the submanual; (2) it looks to the casual observer as though WP doesn't care about numbers and dates; and (3) style WRT numbers and dates doesn't fall under centralised scrutiny as a fully integrated part of style policy.

I suggest that as part of the process of overhauling MOSNUM, we arrive at a summary and post it here for feedback. Is that a good idea? Tony 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Header
"This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia." I thought that was funny, since this artice IS the MOS. Shouldn't it be "This is (not "is part of") the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia."? --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 11:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit:I am aware that, we use the same template throughout the various pages of the MOS, where it is justified to use that template. However, we ARE writing about the MOS, so shouldn't we use proper grammar? --PostScript' (info/talk/contribs) 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that this page, like those pages, are only part of the manual of style. And I don't see your improper grammar. — The Storm Surfer 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

punctuation—interesting link
User:Colin alerted me to this interesting entry by language guru David Crystal, on the faddish "zero tolerance" for variations in punctuation.

We do need a little more in the MOS about punctuation, don't we? Tony 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of punctuation . . . rather than sift through all the archives and such (I'm pressed for time currently), is there a reason why WP's style is to leave the period at the end of the quotation on the outside of the quotation marks? Thousands of sentences end with (".) instead of (."), leaving thousands of periods just dangling outside. I don't understand why the style says to do this, when surely in school we're taught that if a quotation comes at the end of a sentence, to place the period on the INSIDE of the marks.
 * On a humorous note, I'm surprised how much poor punctuation and its support by Wiki upsets me.Stanselmdoc 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely in school we are so taught ... if we're American. Would it be any worse having "thousands of periods just dangling outside" than having thousands of inverted commas just dangling outside?  But, no; yes, there is a reason for WP's style; they do not just dangle: they belong there.  If the full stop is part of that which in quoted, it goes within the inverted commas; otherwise it goes outside.  Think about it—it's the simpler style—what logic would dictate in the absence of that arbitary rule to put all other punctuation marks within the inverted commas.  This is how the rest of us are taught. Jɪmp 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm going to have to live with being unhappy about it. But please, don't argue that it's the "simpler style" when the only reason you think that is because you were brought up with it. I happen to think it's an illogical style, because apparently, as an American, I was taught a different set of logic. Stanselmdoc 13:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not at all because he was "brought up with it". It's called the "logical" style with good reason: the final punctuation is either part of the quote or, on a different structural level, it's part of the large sentence in which the quote sits. Some US usage is good (I like your single els in "traveling" etc—it's simpler), but some is silly, like the issue you raised. Tony 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, there is a separate logic behind it, which is why, even in regions where the ." style is taught, some groups have independently adopted the ". style instead; and why Wikipedia has adopted it despite having more US than British editors (and, despite the fact that ." is also the traditional British style and is still perfectly acceptable in Britain). Eric S. Raymond writes in the Jargon File:
 * Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to the dismay of American editors. Thus, if “Jim is going” is a phrase, and so are “Bill runs” and “Spock groks”, then hackers generally prefer to write: “Jim is going”, “Bill runs”, and “Spock groks”. This is incorrect according to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive to hackers to mutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them. Given the sorts of examples that can come up in discussions of programming, American-style quoting can even be grossly misleading. When communicating command lines or small pieces of code, extra characters can be a real pain in the neck.
 * The reason why the 'British' style has been chosen by Wikipedia over the 'American' style is because it's in line with our general overriding principle about quoting, which is never to modify the contents of quotes. In the American style, if, say, you are quoting "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NIV) - and you were at the end of a sentence, you might quote "In the beginning was the Word."  The problem with this is that a full stop has been inserted into the quote, even though it isn't part of it - the sentence doesn't end there, but the full stop inside the quotes gives the impression that it does.  Wikipedia's quoting style ensures that nothing is ever included inside quote marks which isn't part of the quote.  TSP 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ... which is inherently simpler. Stanselmdoc, what makes you think that the only reason I think this is the simpler style is because I was brought up with it?  As for what I was brought up with: I read British, American, Australian, etc. authors as a kid.  The fact of the matter is that I don't even recall ever having been taught one style or the other.  I certainly was never taught that strange American rule.  In the absence of that rule I found myself naturally using the logical style—'tis only logical.  This side of the pond (the Pacific in my case) we have one rule fewer.  The fewer the rules, the simpler: this is the basis of my argument.  Jɪmp 09:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I have no problem going with the non-American style. If that's what Wiki has chosen to do, I follow and accept that.  The point I was trying to make is that SOME of us editors DON'T see placing a comma or period inside quotation marks as "modify[ing]the contents of quotes", since we're so used to doing it that way.  And just to point out, Jimp, you're again using your own background (that of "not having been brought up with any particular style") to call the American way not as simple.  Just like I, as an American, use my own background to say that it IS simpler.  It's a moot point anyway, since I'm guessing there are far more editors on Wiki who are not American, and the opinion of the greater amount of editors should be observed. Stanselmdoc 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree on two counts: most WPians are North American; and it's not the case that the largest number win, or indeed, the loudest voices. Policy evolves according to a number of patterns and structures, some of which transcend nationality. Good thing, too. Tony 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it was just a guess anyway. But it doesn't really matter how the policy was created, because the point is that the current policy doesn't use the American style.  Which is fine.  I just get defensive of the version I like because grammar and punctuation are pet peeves of mine, and I'm so used to having to correct my fellow Americans that it often carries over into subjects which "transcend nationality" ;). Stanselmdoc 15:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Stanselmdoc, I am using my own background ... as an example. However, the basis of my argument I believe is independant of this.  We have one rule fewer: that's my point.  But, you're right, it's something you'll probably have to put up with (I don't think it'd be an easy policy to overturn).  I understand your getting defensive, though. Jɪmp 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Italics and foreign titles
A somewhat off-topic request, but a formatting and style question. What should be the standard for italicizing foreign terms, especially in songs? Foreign terms in common usage should not be italicized, and several style guides suggest that only "phrases" or "unfamiliar terms" should be italicized, but that would leave lots of room for inconsistency. The country infoboxes and the articles on the anthems themselves vary wildly on this topic, as do sources on the Internet. La Marseillaise, "La Marseillaise," and La Marseillaise have all been seen; and if italicizing for being a foreign word is correct, "La Marseillaise" may well actually be the correct form, despite appearing practically nowhere. I was thinking of editing in something approaching a standard at least for country infoboxes... but I've seen absolutely no response at all on talk pages for a while now, and I'd be nervous about such an undertaking without input. Since I am no expert on the subject, I'm coming to a more heavily trafficked talk page, since going to the more specific Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) didn't get any responses. Anyway, input at Template talk:Infobox Country would be appreciated. SnowFire 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Foreign? The definition of foreign usually signifies from another country. But English Wikipedia covers many countries. "Other languages" would be safer term. Canuckle 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Foreign was meant in the sense of "foreign language" which is the same thing. SnowFire 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)