Content deleted Content added
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) Let's fix this so that it's not backwards and use the same word for opinions on both sides of this issue: "maintain." |
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) Adding another common argument in favor of WP:LQ (one of the non-stupid arguments). |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
||
|q=Why does the Manual of Style recommend the use of logical quotation? |
|q=Why does the Manual of Style recommend the use of logical quotation? |
||
|a=The rule requiring [[Logical quotation|this system]], called both "British" style and "logical" style, and the exclusion of others has been debated here many times. Proponents of this rule maintain that it is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change and less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing. Opponents of this rule maintain that other styles, most notably "American" style, do not generally cause confusion, ambiguity or misquotation under actual use. They also point out that American style is actively preferred by most American English style guides. Please use extreme delicacy when raising this issue for discussion.}} |
|a=The rule requiring [[Logical quotation|this system]], called both "British" style and "logical" style, and the exclusion of others has been debated here many times. Proponents of this rule maintain that it is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change and less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing. Many also say that Wikipedia, as an electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs that British/logical style addresses better than other styles do. Opponents of this rule maintain that other styles, most notably "American" style, do not generally cause confusion, ambiguity or misquotation under actual use. They also point out that American style is actively preferred by most American English style guides, both print and electronic. Please use extreme delicacy when raising this issue for discussion.}} |
||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
Revision as of 14:18, 1 July 2011
Wikipedia's Manual of Style sometimes has conventions that differ from other well-known style manuals and from what is often taught in schools. These differences are usually deliberate. Wikipedia's editors have discussed them in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes better than those of other style manuals. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend not using of curly or typographic quotes and apostrophes (the characters “, ”, ‘, and ’)?
Readers may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page, and Web browsers do not currently find curly quotes when users type straight quotes.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend the use of logical quotation?
The rule requiring this system, called both "British" style and "logical" style, and the exclusion of others has been debated here many times. Proponents of this rule maintain that it is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change and less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing. Many also say that Wikipedia, as an electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs that British/logical style addresses better than other styles do. Opponents of this rule maintain that other styles, most notably "American" style, do not generally cause confusion, ambiguity or misquotation under actual use. They also point out that American style is actively preferred by most American English style guides, both print and electronic. Please use extreme delicacy when raising this issue for discussion.
Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens (-), en dashes (–), em dashes (—), and minus signs (−)?
The use of the full range of these glyphs is normal in typeset English. The sole use of hyphens in articles would make certain constructions ambiguous (for example, an em dash meant to set off a short bit of text from the surrounding text could be confused with a compound adjective) or illegible (for example, a minus sign in a superscript is legible, but some fonts render hyphens so small that they become hard to read). The use of hyphens to approximate other glyphs was due to the mechanical limitations of the typewriter (en and em dashes were not present on typewriter keyboards).