Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m typo |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) Rm. counter-factual POV pushing. We've been over, innumerable times, the reliably sourced fact that logical quotation and what is preferred by many British publishers are not identical, and that American technical writing does not use typesetter's quot. |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
||
|q={{anchors|Logical quotation|LQ}}Why does the Manual of Style recommend |
|q={{anchors|Logical quotation|LQ}}Why does the Manual of Style recommend ''logical quotation'' (sometimes also called "British style")? |
||
|a=The MoS [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside|preference for this system]], to the exclusion of American style, is the subject of [[MOS:REGISTER#Punctuation inside or outside|frequent debate]]. Proponents of this rule maintain that it is more in keeping with the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording|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 |
|a=The MoS [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside|preference for this system]], to the exclusion of ''typesetter's quotation'' (sometimes called "American style"), is the subject of [[MOS:REGISTER#Punctuation inside or outside|frequent debate]]. Proponents of this rule maintain that it is more in keeping with the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording|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 logical quotation addresses better than typesetter's quotation. Opponents of the MoS preference maintain that typesetter's quotation does not generally cause confusion, ambiguity, or misquotation under actual use. They also point out that this style is actively required by most American English style guides, both print and electronic. {{cross reference|(See [[Quotation marks in English#Order of punctuation|Quotation marks in English]] for more background information.)}} Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing [[MOS:REGISTER#Punctuation inside or outside|previous discussions]] first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction.}} |
||
{{FAQ row |
{{FAQ row |
Revision as of 03:12, 9 August 2015
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 straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)?
Readers may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page, and not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation (sometimes also called "British style")?
The MoS preference for this system, to the exclusion of typesetter's quotation (sometimes called "American style"), is the subject of frequent debate. 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 logical quotation addresses better than typesetter's quotation. Opponents of the MoS preference maintain that typesetter's quotation does not generally cause confusion, ambiguity, or misquotation under actual use. They also point out that this style is actively required by most American English style guides, both print and electronic. Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing previous discussions first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction.
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 frequent use of hyphens to approximate other glyphs has been due to the mechanical limitations of the typewriter, and the later layout of computer keyboards, both of which lack keys specifically for the en and em dashes. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to these characters.
Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field are excellent sources for facts about the subject, they are not the best sources for how to present the topic to non-experts. The Manual of Style incorporates much usage that is preferred in technical standards and field-specific academic journals, but may not when it conflicts with most usage in reliable, more general-audience sources.