Wikipedia talk:How to copy-edit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ok, I've made a first go at this article, please step in and copyedit it ;) Mat-C 00:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Verb Conjugation 2 -ize -ise 3 Why aren't these pages copy-edited? 4 copy-editing instructions 5 Trivial and ironic change 6 Pages needing copy-editing 7 Dear Board Members 8 Broken link? 9 Grammar 10 Copy-editing requests 11 Two questions before I fix 12 comments 13 whilst 14 Scope of copy edits 15 External links vs. references 16 "Prohibited" vs "forbidden" 17 Why aren't these pages copyedited, restored 18 "Whereas" and "While" 19 Copy-editing versus NPOV correction 20 Remove the hyphen, please. 21 Disambig? 22 Why have these pages not been copy-edited? 23 Semi-Protection 24 Common copy-edits 25 "Article is being copy-edited" tag? 26 WP:MOS "See also" 27 Avoiding contractions 28 Commas (for Danke55) 28.1 Logical quotation

[edit] Verb Conjugation

Often I find articles in which the author uses plural verb forms when there are singular subjects. Just now I edited the Bioshock article from "... the character to be invisible when they're not moving" to "...when he isn't moving". Since the subject is "the character" the verb and pronoun need to be singular as well. Is there a green light on these kinds of edits or no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.198.52.115 (talk) 02:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

It's called Singular they - in some cases when the singular subject doesn't have a certain gender, some writers feel that "they" is the most appropriate pronoun. --MathiasRav 23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -ize -ise

I was under the impression that -ize was only acceptable in American English, and -ise only in British English...? Neonumbers 10:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. At least in Australian english, which is much closer to British english, the -ize ending is considered to be incorrect. Dmharvey 16:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may be considered incorrect, but that's a common misconception. -ize is of course correct, this spelling has always existed in every English-speaking country. The Australian Journal of Linguistics even prefers -ize... SpNeo 02:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• There's a fairly good summary of the -ize/-ise situation at [1]. Some words, such as advertise, always have the -ise suffix. Some other words traditionally use the -ize suffix, but the newer -ise variant is commonly used in British English (unless it's for a stylistically conservative publisher). Apparently words are in the latter group if their -ize suffix is derived from Greek, though that may not be the easiest way of remembering the rule in practice. Factitious 06:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't these pages copy-edited?

An occasional complaint is: "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Or, from folks who've been here a bit longer: "Why aren't these pages wikified?" ("Wikifying" is the process of adding links and basic formatting). The answer, of course, is very simple: it's because you, and others like you, have idly passed by mistakes when you saw them. Instead, you could have corrected them (simply click on the Edit this page tab at the top of the page, fix, and save), which would have prevented others from wondering the same thing. This is usually easier, faster, and less emotional than spending the time typing a complaint. So get on the ball - go out there and edit now! Be bold!

That's a little, say, provocative isn't it?

Literally so. It's intended to provoke people into correcting the errors they find. Factitious July 9, 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Its a bit accusing :)Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

I agree. There is no onus on anyone to edit anything in wikipedia; the encyclopedia is meant to be free with no conditions. Furthermore, guilting everyone into editing will most likely lead to edits from inexperienced users and people with poor grammatical skills. Thus, I believe this paragraph should be recomposed. Jerram (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a fairly massive editing job here -- was actually wondering whether people come by regularly and mess it up just because that's funny. Especially comical was the alt. text for "typo" in the beginning of the article; it was like "tyop" or something. Brilliant! :) Sugarbat (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copy-editing instructions

Hi, can someone either point me to the page that explains how to take the page out of the copy-edit rotation when you're done copy-editing it, or else add those instructions to the page with the list of articles? I did an article before I realized that I didn't know what needed to be done to finish it up. I removed the copy-edit template from the article and also removed it from the list on the "tasks you can do" list. (It seemed to remove itself from the alphabetical list of articles.) Anything else? Thank you! --Elizabeth 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial and ironic change

I changed "Blatant copy-editing mistakes, look bad, even trivial, and they should be corrected as soon as possible" to "Blatant copy-editing mistakes, even trivial ones, look bad, and they should be corrected as soon as possible," as otherwise my irony meter might have exploded. Manticore 14:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed trivial to small because I thought trivial made the errors sounds unimportant. Small, though it points to the "size" of an error, does not by that designation mean that something is insignificant. "For want of a nail ..." Scrawlspacer 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pages needing copy-editing

Where is the relevant list - which is what I would expect on coming to this page.

It is right here: Articles needing copy-edited.--Song 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Board Members

What's with all that "Dear Board Members" stuff in the "Correcting Grammar" section? It doesn't look like it makes any sense, but for some reason, I'm afraid to delete it. I can't get through it without my eyes crossing, so maybe it's relevant... but I sorta doubt it. Any ideas? --NymphadoraTonks 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link?

The link 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections' appears to be broken. Is it meant to be 'Help:Section#"See_also"_line_or_section'? JDX 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

What is the wikipedia policy on grammar? I have found no wikipedia policy or style page which indicates which grammar wikipedia favours. Rintrah 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Try here:Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Each section has links to more detailed information. Broadly speaking, the Wikipedia style manual follows the Chicago Manual of Style and the Guardian style guide. There's a tolerance of American, British, and other English styles, though individual pages should try to remain consistent.qp10qp 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does not follow either of those two hard-copy styleguides. Tony (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing requests

I'm unsure about this, so I'm going to ask here: is there by chance a page where one could request another to copy-edit an article? It's difficult for authors to copy-edit their own material because it's their own writing. For example, I find it hard to edit my work since my eyes seem to avoid what I've typed and I assume it's correct. Is there a page for requesting third parties to copy-edit articles? Never Mystic (tc) 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Place copyedit, within two curly brackets ({{ }}) at the top of the page. Conor 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions before I fix

Why is shortened word forms used instead of contractions, which is what's meant in the reference to can't, won't, don't, etc.? It's a good bet visitors to this page are going to know what a contraction is (especially when examples are given).

Also, what does this even mean: In extreme cases, an impartial Wikipedian questions whether English is the editor's first language. The article's present tense sounds strained here, and I don't think an example of an "extreme" case is necessary. I think the rest of the paragraph is clear enough without it, and there's something sort of unnecessarily anecdotal about it that's rubbing me funny. Besides, there's a slight number-agreement problem (only one impartial Wikipedian, one editor, but more than one "extreme case"). Can we take it out?

Sugarbat 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments

IMO, this page needs a copy-edit itself. It's rather slender. The external link needs to be explicitly put into context (it needs a copy-edit and has in turn links to dodgy sites). More internal links could appear at the bottom. Tony 10:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whilst

I've never heard of "whilst" being branded formal. British English, absolutely, but formal? I would agree with the prohibition on "utilize", as it's quite unnecessary; "in order to" may well read/flow better than "to", but is generally superfluous. But "whilst"? That seems really rather silly. Here on Airstrip One, I hear people saying "whilst" quite regularly, and entirely informally, though my friends from North America regard it as quaint and archaic. But not formal, to the best of my knowledge. DrPizza 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; I think it's unnecessary, and "while" shows the same meaning. If we allow "whilst", we might as well allow "hitherto" and so on. — Deckiller 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"color" and "colour" show the same meaning, but both of them are acceptable. "while" and "whilst" should be in the same boat, as far as I can tell. The claims of "formality" levelled at "whilst" are wrong. DrPizza 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's common in British English? I was just following Tony1's comments with that one. I'd say remove it from the misplaced formality section unless it's in an article predominantly American English, then. — Deckiller 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Whilst" is quite common across the sea (and in some bubble-and-squeak pockets here in the US); I've edited to clarify that. I don't think there's anything formal about "whereas," mostly because I think there's no reasonable/simpler alternative (except for "while," but that doesn't have exactly the same meaning as "whereas" in some contexts. "At the same time" might be less fancified, but has four syllables, and is thereby disqualified, or, "right out"). But "hitherto" can be said "until now," or "so far," each of which has only two syllables, and is therefore better. :) Sugarbat (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "hitherto"? Unimaginative Username 05:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of copy edits

I'm having difficulty interpreting these guidelines in the case of substantial copyediting changes to an article. It would not be surprising to find an article with several minor spelling / grammar / capitalization / hyphenation issues, and perhaps a couple of easily revised sentence fragments. Is it best to apply all these changes in one go? Or should they be split up, into dozens of individually inconsequential ones? Applied section-by-section for the whole article? Applied like-for-like, i.e. all spelling corrections in one go, hyphenation corrections in one go, etc.? How can one write effective edit summaries when there is broad or extensive copyediting work?

How does reverting work in such a case? If edits are split up, even if only by section, then it becomes difficult to revert an edit early in the history while retaining the later ones. However the other case, the "one big edit," seems just as problematical. Advice to this newcomer would be appreciated! --Iamgrim 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just make all the changes in one go. This makes the page history easier to read. For the edit summary you can just write something like 'extensive copyediting' or 'various spelling and grammar corrections'. If any reverts are needed they can be achieved by editing the article, if necessary using copy and paste from an earlier version of the article. S Sepp 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually edit one section at a time to prevent edit conflicts. But if it's a backwater article, then making it all in one go shouldn't be an issue. Writing "copy-edit" is usually good enough. — Deckiller 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• This strikes me as an interesting point. I've noticed that editors are split on this issue; some editors regularly make dozens of small edits one after another with good individual edit summaries, while other editors (like myself) are prone to rewrite an entire 150k article in one go and call it "reworded for clarity". I actually think the former might be preferable, since it gives other editors individual "bites" to digest. However, it can also make the edit history more confusing. Personally, I recommend using small bite-sized edits whenever there's any active or "heated" editing going on, especially in an edit-war zone. But my point here is actually that I think this issue might deserve further discussion, and some guidelines might be in order in the article. I know I had essentially the same question as Iamgrim, back when I started editing. I imagine we're not the only two who have, huh? Eaglizard 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find that one advantage of doing it in sections or bits is that if you screw up while editing and have to cancel, you don't lose all of the good edits you've made that haven't been saved yet. Sort of like saving a word document frequently. Another is that after editing one section, upon reviewing it you often see other changes to be made. Gets very tiring to keep re-reading if you're doing the whole article at once. Another is that if you have some small notations that explain to others why the change was made, there is less chance of someone reverting the edit because they don't understand the rule of grammar (or whatever) involved. I've sometimes gone overboard on this, which is a mistake, but something like "rm redundancy", "clarity", "punc" "misplaced modifier", etc. can help others to understand why the changes were made (especially the writer whose words are being edited). But that is all just this editor's POV. Regards, Unimaginative Username 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links vs. references

Under Common copy-edits is this bullet point (3rd from the bottom):

• External links generally belong at the end of an article under a heading titled "External links". References are an exception and should match the link in the reference section; these are then handled automatically.

I think the second sentence is very unclear (especially to the newbie), but I'm not sure how to improve it. Probably a couple more sentences will have to be added. I hope someone will help. Thanks! Scrawlspacer 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Prohibited" vs "forbidden"

I just want to note that I disagree with the example of prohibited as being overly formal language, to be replaced (apparently) by forbidden. These are two entirely different words. To prohibit something can also mean to simply prevent it from happening (as in, Anoxia prohibits metabolism), while to forbid is simply to state one's intention to prohibit. Imo. Eaglizard 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'll add that to me, neither one is more or less formal than the other. Forbidden has one fewer syllable, but otherwise seems just as stuffy. If you want to be informal, I suggest the phrase not allowed. Randall Nortman 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to be informal in an encyclopedia, but needn't be stuffy either. Both are perfectly fine words, with possibly slightly different shades of connotation. For example, from [2]:

Forbid, a common and familiar word, usually denotes a direct or personal command of this sort: I forbid you to go. It was useless to forbid children to play in the park. ... Prohibit, a formal or legal word, means usually to forbid by official edict, enactment, or the like: to prohibit the sale of liquor.

Unimaginative Username 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't these pages copyedited, restored

With some minor modifications, I have restored the section show above as "Why aren't these pages copyedited", because I think it is an excellent addition to the article. I don't think it's "accusing", now. After all, isn't asking readers to become editors precisely the heart of Wikipedia? Eaglizard 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I believe that guilting people into editing will lead to greater input from those with inferior writing skills.Jerram (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why "wikified" features so prominently, when the article concerns "copy-editing"? And the two terms are not adequately distinguished. Anything wrong with leaving the "wikified" out, or till later in the article? Tony (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I think it rather hypocritical in the sense that, realistically, 'wikified' is not a word. Jerram (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Whereas" and "While"

I'm not convinced that "whereas" (in mid-position) is all that formal, or at least no more so than "while." I also discern a slight difference in connotation between the two. "Whereas" suggests a neutral "flat" contrast, whereas "while" is a bit more pointed, with a hint of slightly arch surprise. Whereas "Whereas" at the start of a sentence does sound rather archaic or legalistic, in mid-position I find it useful and not at all pompous.

Anyone else noticed this? The DGH got 210 votes, whereas the POK only managed to collect 23. The DGH got 210 votes, while the POK only managed to collect 23. Toroboro 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing versus NPOV correction

Under "Etiquette", changed the wording to clarify that c/e does not include correcting POV issues, which should be corrected before requesting c/e. Discussion of this issue was at the project "Criteria" page. Unimaginative Username 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the hyphen, please.

This page should be moved to "Wikipedia talk:How to copy edit"

See this link for a professional example of how to use the term "copy edit."

Also, almost all of the places on this page where it says "copy-edit" should be replaced with "copy edit." An exception would be if copy edit is used as an adjective, such as "copy-editing software." Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Normal usage is copy-edit, copy-editing etc, with a hyphen - or at least it's just as common as the non-hyphen variety. See the wikipedia article on copy editing, and note, for example, Butcher's Copy-Editing, published by Cambridge University Press. GNUSMAS : TALK 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that it could be either. For consistency, I would recommend either following through with my initial suggestion (while recognizing that either spelling is valid), or move the Copy editing page to Copy-editing, changing the initial text to read, "Copy-editing (also copy editing or copyediting) is the..." Which would you prefer? Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I can accept either version, but I think in general the hyphenated form is better and easier to understand at a glance. In this particular case, for instance, it's immediately clear in "how to copy-edit" that "copy-edit" is a compound verb, not a combination of verb (copy) + noun (edit). I find "how to copy edit" less clear, and (fleetingly) open to misreading. I did once try (years ago) to get Copy editing moved to Copy-editing, and met a barrage of (mostly American) objections, founded (as far as I could see) on nothing more than prejudice and unawareness that the whole world does not speak American. Maybe my preference for the hyphen is largely a matter of British habit. I wish you luck! GNUSMAS : TALK 08:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig?

Don't we want to add also disambiguation of links, with the help of software like Wikipedia Cleaner? Randomblue (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why have these pages not been copy-edited?

I know we've discussed this before, but this section is written in such a negative and off-putting way. In particular, this bit strikes me as over-the-top: It's because you, and others like you have passed by mistakes when you saw them. Instead, you could have corrected them by simply clicking on the "Edit this page" tab at the top of the page, fixing the error, and saving. To my mind, this technique of blaming (and blaming someone interested enough to click on WP:COPYEDIT!) is offensive, and I would stop reading immediately when I came to such a statement. GreenGourd (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As seen above, I agree. Jerram (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an embarrassing spelling error in that subsection; a few other things need fixing, too. The tone should have a certain formatlity, too, while still being friendly. Tony (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lol nice find there Tony...whoops..

[edit] Semi-Protection

It appears that this page, like many others, has become the target for indiscriminant vandalism recently. Semi-protecting the page will keep the vandals out and move them on to other things. 211.29.174.54 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common copy-edits

Can someone more familiar with WP:MOS than I am please make the following point consistent, perhaps by putting style (wiki ''style'') or 'style' (wiki {{'}}''style''{{'}}) instead of 'style' (wiki ''''style'''')?

• Words that are being defined, described, or referenced as words, should be italicized. Example: The term 'style' can refer to the layout and context of an article.

Certes (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Article is being copy-edited" tag?

Folks, is there a tag that can be put on an article to indicate that it is being copy-edited, requesting other editors to refrain from editing while the copy-edit is in process? If not, I think we need one. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{in use}} is what I would use. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOS "See also"

This article has just been added to the See also section of WP:MoS, so it could do with a little polish. There was a hidden comment in the first section asking if it was bossy ... it was, a bit, and also longer than it needed to be. I moved it to the lead and shortened it up; is there anything else that needs saying there? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding contractions

Is this really consensus? My feeling, based on what many editors seem to do, is no. Overuse of contractions can seem excessively conversational, but I don't think there's any blanket prohibition on using them in articles. Even in academic writing, a prohibition on contractions is in many areas nowadays seen as somewhat old-fashioned and no longer followed. --Delirium (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AP Style Manual says "Contractions reflect informal speech and writing." TCMOS is silent. You're right that we're nearing a tipping point, because so much "persuasive" speech these days is written in blogs and in the style of blogs. Still, it's important to the project as a whole to have a solid core of articles that sound just as formal as the other online encyclopedias, it helps give us a certain dignity. There's no need for every article to be written in that style, though. As a compromise, we say: if you want to write a featured article, it has to follow WP:MoS, and it's also the "safe" thing to do to follow WP:MoS, because we've put a lot of effort into following the lead of large numbers of professional copywriters. But styles vary; in fact, we've just started conducting a large study of writing style of articles as they first enter WP:GAN, at Good article usage. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commas (for Danke55)

Howdy -- haven't had time yet today to go through all your edits, but I do appreciate the compliment, and thanks. :) This is confusing me, though: (→Common edits: Actually, that's wrong, in Wikipedia; search for "logical quotation" in WP:MOS I'm assuming you're saying the whole section you deleted (about comma usage) is wrong, but not only do I not agree, I don't see evidence of it on the page you cite. Can you be more specific about what you think is wrong in that section (as I wrote it)? Thanks! Sugarbat (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we very much need people with a good sense of language as article reviewers, especially at WP:GAN and WP:GAR, I hope you'll join us. Did you search for "logical quotation" on WP:MOS? Wikipedia follows the rule of almost always using the same punctuation marks inside a quote as the source did. The most common exception is that double quotes will usually be changed to single quotes. If there's no period at the end of the quoted material, Wikipedia puts the period outside the quotation marks. Did I misunderstand what you were saying? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- I think you did misunderstand. Can you do me a favor and re-read the part I wrote (that you deleted)? I didn't actually get that deep into detail about context; I was mostly just guiding users on the use of general punctuation use in/outside quotation marks. Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of people love to put the comma outside of the end-quotes (for example: Jane said, "Maybe", which was a dumb thing for her to have said.), which is never, as far as I know, acceptable -- regardless of whether the comma was part of the quote or not. I didn't talk at all about punctuation of the original quote, etc. -- I figured that kind of detail was best covered elsewhere than the general-guidelines section.

The thing you say (above) about the period going outside of the quotation marks -- I've never seen that anywhere, under any circumstances. Maybe *I'm* misunderstanding *you*? Are you saying that:

Jane said, "I covered that earlier." should be Jane said, "I covered that earlier".? That can't be what you mean. Even if there were additional, non-quote material in the sentence after the last quote of Jane's, and if that quote were not a complete sentence, there should still (always almost always) be a comma (and never a period, even if that quote were a complete sentence) after that last quote, but before the period at the very end of the sentence, like so:

At first, Jane said, "No," but then she said "Yes," and at that point I gave her the tomato.

or

I thought that gesture meant "up," but was told later that it meant "down," so I waited for further instruction.'' Sugarbat (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "People with a good sense of language" should be "people with good senses of language," since there are many different, but good, senses of language, and not all people with "good" ones have the same ones. You'll find me correcting thousands of little glitches like that; please know it in advance and start hating me now.  :) Sugarbat (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I said "People with knowledge of European languages", would you correct me to "knowledges", since there's more than one? And note that I put the comma after the quotation marks both times, which is not what I tend to do when writing in a blog, but WP:MoS recommends it. See the first Note at WP:PUNC (which is in WP:MOS) for source material backing this up and an explanation. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoahsies! As we say in my neighborhood. First, that whole thing with punctuation (commas, periods, etc.) outside of end-quotes is blowing my mind. I've never heard of such a thing, and it certainly doesn't come from Chicago or AP. Can you cite the ()very very original) source for such usage as [languages",] (brackets mine, for clarity) please? Because I'm literally dying of curiousity. (I mean the source outside of WP; I did look at all pages you cite, above, and am nowhere near convinced. In fact, unless someone can point me to a legit source for these shenanigans, I'm of a mind to start correcting everything willy nilly, including the stuff on those pages, too. "Note," indeed!

As for "knowledge" v. "knowledges," [note comma] and although I know you're kidding, I'll point out that "knowledge," like "deer," [note commas] can be singular or plural, depending on context. Also, there is no such thing as "knowledges," except maybe in Middle Earth. So the answer is no, I wouldn't correct as above. Lovesies, Sugarbat (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Post scriptsies: Let me be clear about the above: There are definitely instances where punctuation goes outside (e.g., to the right of) end-quotes. But not in the above examples, and I can't think of a single case where a comma appropriately belongs in such a spot (outside of end-quote). Don't everybody come at me with semantical hoo ha. Sugarbat (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Ok. I think I understand what's happening here. There's a difference b/w standard English and standard American usage w/r/t commas & semicolons, and other stuff, such as whether beer should be warm. I also suspected there was maybe a hitch resulting from html syntax, etc., wherein sometimes it's necessary to dispense with punctuation convention in the interest of technical accuracy. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Punctuation. I think what we need to do, then, is just maintain consistency within single articles, as we do when deciding on spellings such as color v. colour, etc. Since I've been copy-editing in America, I have American rules burned into my brain, and thus tend to correct that way. But I will try to keep the other set of rules in mind, and not tamper as long as they're consistent within an article. Fair? Sugarbat (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logical quotation

←Here's the longest discussion on the subject from the WT:MoS archives, and here's some useful information from a Canadian style guide. Most things that are in both TCMOS and the AP Stylebook are perfectly okay in American-English articles in Wikipedia, but WP:MoS recommends against this one. Most people outside the U.S. use logical quotation, and so do most Americans writing in technical and academic contexts. Consensus seems to have been fairly strong on this point since 2002 on Wikipedia, for some or all of the following reasons:

1. It's not just a matter of style or preference. Allowing punctuation inside the quotation marks that wasn't in the original can convey false information, even intentionally false information. A Point-of-view-pusher might write that a politician said "I'm angry." Maybe the politician said "I'm angry about food prices"; let's not give the POV-pusher the right to invent a period inside the quotation marks just because it's at the end of a sentence. Except for the addition of single-quotes, ellipses and brackets, punctuation is generally preserved faithfully inside quotation marks on Wikipedia. Not allowing material to change as it passes from one text to the next also helps avoid the telephone game.
2. If someone outside North America sees the word "color", it may look odd for a moment, but it doesn't convey false information. A period within quotation marks that wasn't in the source will convey false information about where the sentence ended in the source material, since most non-Americans think that a period inside quotations was present in the original.
3. The American convention is sometimes ambiguous in technical publications. Dots sometimes denote unknown information, so a gene sequence might be described as "A.GTA." A url fragment might or might not contain a dot at the end. It's better not to have to guess what was meant.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with all of the above. I don't like to support a rule with no other argument than that it's a rule, and sadly the English language, in application and interpretation, is full of craziness that even native English-speakers often find enormously frustrating.

Too, it's always easier to remember a rule when it makes sense, and the more familiar you are with your tools the more comfortable they are in the handling, and the more attention you can pay to what you're making as you use them. However, I'll probably still, in my original writing and in the editing of articles written in the style with which I'm familiar, use the quote/punctuation rules I'm used to, but I'll freely confess it's because I'll make fewer mistakes w/r/t consistency that way, and not because I believe those rules are necessarily best. So please don't think I'm arguing any of this on the basis of nothing but canon.

If you really want to see me angry, for fun say to me, "between you and I," or pronounce "short-lived" where "live" rhymes with "give."  :) Sugarbat (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)