View source for Talk:Quotation marks in English/Archive 2

{{Automatic archive navigator}}

== article need some Guillemet citation and explain ==

see [[Guillemet]] --[[User:Krauss|Krauss]] ([[User talk:Krauss|talk]]) 12:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== American quotations - why ==

Kinda needs an explanation about how this could have occurred in the first place... [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''<span style="color:#0808C8">Tu</span><span style="color:#0606BE">rk</span><span style="color: #040488">ey</span><span style="color:#020264">ph</span><span style="color:#000064">an</span>''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<sup><big>t</big></sup>]] 02:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

:What, you mean why American punctuation is the way it is?  Why do the British spell "center" as if it were pronounced "senn-treh"&mdash;because it doesn't work any worse than doing it the other way.
:I heard once that it's from printing, that the narrow period and comma keys would break if they were placed on the end of a line, but the only source for that was something that someone said in a forum once.  As for British style, it was first advocated by Fowler and Fowler in their book ''The King's English'' in 1906.  Before that, everyone used American style.
:If you can find a better source, then we could certainly do a section on the history of American and British punctuation styles, but it would be phrased neutrally. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::'''Answer:''' We British spell it as ''centre'' because it comes from the Latin ''centrum'', from Ancient Greek κέντρον (''kéntron'', “centre”). So which is the more correct? {{wink}}<strong>— &#124; [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] &#124;<small>[[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|The&nbsp;Welsh]]</small>[[Special:Contributions/Gareth Griffith-Jones|Buzzard]]&#124; —</strong> 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:::'''Neither'''.  That's the point.  The British spelling is closer to the root word's spelling but the American spelling is closer to the current word's pronunciation.  The British put a unnecessary U in "harbor" as well.  But the only people who pronounce the words "cen-treh" instead of "center" or "har-boor" instead of "harbor" are those who are still learning how to read.  Both spelling systems work.  In the same way, American punctuation, despite the assumption that it less logical than British style, has never caused even one reported case of miscommunication on Wikipedia and none that I've seen off it.  There is no logical reason to prefer one style to the other from a functionality perspective.  It is solely a matter of habit and personal taste.
:::If you or Turkey want to write a section on the origins of these two styles, you're free to look up sources and draft it.  If you want to write a section about professional criticism of either or both styles, which is what I'm guessing that Turkey really wants, you are also free to look up sources and draft one, but its tone must be neutral.  [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::LOL. There is no noticeboard for "reporting" confusion on Wikipedia caused by non-MoS-readers using typographers' ("American") quotation.  I encounter such problems regularly, fix them as best I can and move on with my gnoming, just like everyone else does. No one on WP obsesses about this American punctuation thing. Oh, well there is {{em|one}} editor who does. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]][[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::Are you really posting a personal attack almost a year after the conversation ended?  Well to answer, all the many times I've asked, "Hey, has anyone ever seen American punctuation cause any problems on Wikipedia?" you have been silent.  Keep in mind that by "problems," I mean ''actual'', non-imaginary problems, like miscommunication or an error in subsequent editing and not that "American punctuation tells the reader that the comma is part of the song title!!  It causes problems by existing!!" nonsense.  That's along the same lines as "British spelling tells people that 'centre' is pronounced 'senn-treh.'" Neither American punctuation nor British spelling makes any such claim.  It's not a problem; it's a pet peeve of your own.  But if you've actually seen one, diffs please. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 06:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
::::Perhaps I haven't been clear. "It is solely a matter of habit and personal taste." I guess that's where we disagree. There is a logical reason to prefer one over the other (even implicitly acknowledged in their names). And one can only assume the less logical version came after the other, and hence there was a decision made to adopt it. Given there are only negatives and no positives, it would be useful for the article to address the reasoning behind using this and even perpetuating it now it's simple to become aware of the alternative. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''<span style="color:#0808C8">Tu</span><span style="color:#0606BE">rk</span><span style="color: #040488">ey</span><span style="color:#020264">ph</span><span style="color:#000064">an</span>''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<sup><big>t</big></sup>]] 14:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Adding: I see now that apparently the switch to the less logical version actually came later (at least in printed form). In this case, the question should be why did the American version change to the more sensible option when the British version did? What's the reason for not adopting a change that was widespread elsewhere? [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''<span style="color:#0808C8">Tu</span><span style="color:#0606BE">rk</span><span style="color: #040488">ey</span><span style="color:#020264">ph</span><span style="color:#000064">an</span>''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<sup><big>t</big></sup>]] 14:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::You have it backwards.  Everyone used to use American style. Then Fowler and Fowler wrote their 1906 book and the British started leaving their commas untucked.
::::::There are actually several logical reasons to prefer American style.  For one, American style is easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit.  Whether that is more or less important than appealing to an abstract sense of "Well using the same rule that we use for question marks makes more sense to me" ''is solely a matter of habit and taste''.  People tend to prefer the style that they are more used to.
::::::If British style really were better, then it would work better than American style in practice, and it doesn't.  There's been no study showing either to be associated with differences in reading comprehension or later typos, and a bit of evidence to the contrary.  If you study the way the human brain processes images, you will not find this surprising.  Our readers aren't computers; they don't parse text character-for-character: Csae in pnoit.
::::::The main issue, though, is the article.  Is there something that you want to add to or remove from ''the article''?  [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 14:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Read my correct. As for claims that they are "easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit" - surely you have this the wrong way round? The more logical version is, if it's not obvious already, logically easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit. Of course people prefer the more usual style but that doesn't answer the question I've asked. And it's clearly false to claim "If British style really were better, then it would work better than American style in practice, and it doesn't." See the discussion above about the CMoS for example.
:::::::Re: the article. See my original talk comment. After reading I had more questions than answers. I feel it's appropriate to address as best we can. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''<span style="color:#0808C8">Tu</span><span style="color:#0606BE">rk</span><span style="color: #040488">ey</span><span style="color:#020264">ph</span><span style="color:#000064">an</span>''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<sup><big>t</big></sup>]] 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Darkfrog24 is correct; a system with only one pattern is easier than a system with multiple patterns. I also do not fully understand what issue the original talk comment ("Kinda needs an explanation...") is addressing in the article. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk:Doremo|talk]]) 16:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Clearly ease is subjective. But I'd still claim the logical choice is "easier to teach, easier to learn, easier to use and easier to copy-edit" and at the very worst, equal. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''<span style="color:#0808C8">Tu</span><span style="color:#0606BE">rk</span><span style="color: #040488">ey</span><span style="color:#020264">ph</span><span style="color:#000064">an</span>''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<sup><big>t</big></sup>]] 17:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::It's also worth mentioning that both systems have only "one" pattern. It depends how you define the pattern. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''<span style="color:#0808C8">Tu</span><span style="color:#0606BE">rk</span><span style="color: #040488">ey</span><span style="color:#020264">ph</span><span style="color:#000064">an</span>''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<sup><big>t</big></sup>]] 17:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::No I don't have it the wrong way around.  You only think British style is easier because you are used to it.  But if you take someone not familiar with either style and say, "Keep periods and commas inside all the time," they will find that easier than "figure out whether the period or comma 'belongs' to the words inside the quotation marks using complex grammatical rules; here, it might be easier if you do it with question marks first." This actually isn't subjective.  You can go to elementary schools and ESL schools and observe it.  The idea that British style is more logical is subjective.
::::::::::I think Turkeyphan just doesn't like American style and wants to talk about that for a bit.  For now, I don't mind obliging.  I like to talk about this issue too.  TP, if I'm wrong and you want to talk about the article, why don't you say which specific sentences troubled you?  Then we can work out a clearer way to phrase the information. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 15:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Quotation marks in English]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678306937 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402231935/http://www.tjhsst.edu/~rgreen/grammar/quotes.htm to http://www.tjhsst.edu/~rgreen/grammar/quotes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 15:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

== Logical and British quotation are/are not the same thing ==

While various sources lump them together and gloss over the differences, they're easily and clearly distinguishable, and have a different rationale.  LQ always puts outside the final quotation mark any terminal punctuation that was not in the original source, and does not modify the quoted punctuation (except in a square-bracketed interpolation), while British (i.e. Oxford/Hart's/Fowler's) {{em|usually}} puts it outside, but permits exceptions for both inserting extraneous punctuation and modifying the quoted punctuation, within the quotation, if the writer feels it serves the "sense" of the sentence better. Neither are possible in logical quotation, which is always faithful to the source material.  I'll source this in detail after I finish the citation digging and formatting. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

:According to the sources, they are two names for the same thing: 

::There are a few sources that refer to the system "British" and "logical" in the same passage.

::*[http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm Grammar Commnet] "But in England you would write: My favorite poem is Robert Frost's 'Design'. The placement of marks other than periods and commas follows the logic that quotation marks should accompany (be right next to) the text being quoted or set apart as a title."
::*[http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2011/may/19/mind-your-language-punctuation-quotations David Marsh writing in ''The Guardian'']:'the British style', which 'rules on message and bulletin boards'. Jolly good."
::*[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2011/05/the_rise_of_logical_punctuation.2.html  Ben Yagoda in Slate] referring to others: "copious examples of the 'outside' technique—which readers of Virginia Woolf and ''The Guardian'' will recognize as the British style" (It's also Yagoda's own opinion but, like Marsh and [http://www.subversivecopyeditor.com/blog/2011/05/logical-punctuation-and-quotation-marks-in-defense-of-cmos.html CMoS] I'm skeptical about his understanding of the matter.)
::*[http://www.dailywritingtips.com/logical-punctuation-isn%E2%80%99t-the-logical-choice/ Mark Nichol]

::Far more common are sources that use either the name "British" or "logical" but describe the same system:

::*[http://www.wilbers.com/FAQPunctuation.htm  Chicago Manual of Style]: "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"
::*[http://web.archive.org/web/20110410233640/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/riiss/Documents/JISS%20Style%20Guide%20revised%20FV.pdf  Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies]: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation."
::*[https://books.google.com/books?id=PoFJ-OhE63UC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=%22quotation+marks%22+%22according+to+sense%22+British&source=bl&ots=2Vlh-GBz0j&sig=SrMxN2GNFZ2Zhmk2n3hou-65Y3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIl5O7tazbxwIVizw-Ch2woQ2U#v=onepage&q=%22quotation%20marks%22%20%22according%20to%20sense%22%20British&f=false  Scientific Style and Format]: "In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed ''according to the sense''."

:If anyone wants to see more sources that deal with this issue, there is a large list compiled here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_140#Lists_of_sources]
:SmC, I understand that you think your assertions are true and feel strongly about them, but on Wikipedia, it's [[WP:V|verifiability, not truth]].  Sources have been provided showing that these are two names for the same practice and that they are used interchangeably by RS. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 17:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Been over this 50-odd times with you already. It doesn't matter how many sources you find that gloss over the distinction between logical and British quotation because getting into the distinction isn't relevant to their immediately context, it does nothing to magically erase the fact that the style guides that define these styles clearly distinguish two distinct styles, one called logical, one called (most often) British, and that they are significantly different. No amount of ignoring sources {{em|you}} don't like will ever make that fact go away. I'm not sure why this is not getting through to you. Let's make it simple: If I write a book that says liberals and communists (or conservatives and fascists) are the same thing, this doesn't make it true, no matter how many other sources also blur the distinction, because other reliable sources distinguish them in detail. Your deletion of my dispute tag (along with deletion of a reliable soruce and insertion of a self-published one) are disruptive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
::::SmC, remember over in the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Take_four_.28wording_of_MoS_entry_on_pronouns_for_fictional_characters.29|animate vs inanimate discussion]], when you said the distinction was to use animate pronouns for fictional characters in-universe and inanimate out-of-universe, but really you just ''thought'' that was the way it worked?  This could be what's going on here.  You're drawing a distinction&mdash;a perfectly logical distinction&mdash;but according to the sources, that isn't how English really works.
::::Here's a thought.  There are lots of sources that say. "There's American style; it goes like this.  There's British style; it goes like that," clearly showing that they're talking about two different systems (by putting them in different paragraphs, etc.).  Do you have one that says, "There's British style; it goes like this.  There's logical style; it goes like that" while clearly showing that they're two different things and not the same thing that works in more than one way? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 20:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::Remember over on another page, you tried the same bogus ''ad hominem'' tactic, and it made you look silly, because you [[straw man|farcically misrepresented]] my position in that earlier debate, and you come across as if you can't differentiate between two arguments about different things? Oh, wait, that seems to directly mirror what's going on in all of these debates; you simply aren't rationally parsing them. How about that?  (Don't like this tone? Stop using it with me.) Direct comparison source: {{em|Of course}} we have a source that does that, the ''Guardian'' article already cited. But of course that article doesn't exist, or doesn't say what it says, as long as you don't want it to.</p><p>It wouldn't matter anyway. If we have RS that say "cars do not have truck beds" and other RS that say "pick-up trucks are like cars, but have truck beds", it doesn't matter how many sources you can find that, for whatever convenience reason they may have, lump trucks in with cars (e.g. because they're all about water vehicles and mention land vehicles in passing, as "cars", only to distinguish them from water vehicles). The fact that cars are distinguishable in reliable sources, per specific features of them, cannot be magically erased. It's perfectly fine to say that some sources lump trucks in with cars; it's not okay to say in WP's voice that trucks and cars are identical, that "car" and "truck" are two names for exactly the same thing, and deny any mention of their distinction. That's precisely what you're trying to do. We also don't need any direct-comparison sources, since the style guides publish definitions, and they're clearly distinguishable. I don't need a source that directly compares a pool ball and 1/8 ounce of cocaine, side by side, to write about how the word "[[8-ball (disambiguation)|8-ball]]" has more than one meaning, and to write about those meanings separately, nor to prevent you from trying to change pool articles to say that the games are played with drug baggies, not balls. That's also exactly what you're trying to do here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::''What'' ad hominem attack?  Pointing out that you've read too much into things before?  You've said far worse and far less substantiated things about me.
::::::SmC, you think the sources are wrong.  You're allowed to have an opinion, but you need to stop pretending that I'm doing something wrong by preferring sourced material to whatever conclusions you've drawn on your own. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I've never said the sources are wrong, only what [[WP:NOR|you're doing with them]]. I never claimed you attacked me; ''[[ad homimen]]'' is logic fallacy. That's twice in one post you've falsified my statements. Just like you're doing with the sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 04:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::::SmC, it is not civil to call people liars.  You misinterpret me fairly often and I don't call you a liar, do I?
::::::::But yes, when you say things like, "Just because some sources use the terms interchangeably doesn't mean they really are the same thing," it ''does'' look like you think they're wrong. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:It is entirely possible that some reliable sources draw a distinction between these two terms and others do not. It is important to keep in mind that a term does not necessarily have a single meaning that is the true and correct meaning bestowed by the masters of the language and that all other uses of the term are incorrect. Please remember that English is a ''descriptive'' language, not a ''prescriptive'' one. In this situation, the article should say something like "some authors draw a distinction between these two terms, using "logical quotation to mean ... and using "British quotation to mean ...", rather than something like "Properly, logical quotation means ... and British quotation has a different meaning which is ..., although some authors make the mistake of confusing them."  —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 16:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::If it could be shown that some sources do distinguish between them and others do not, then it would probably would be reasonable to say something like that&mdash;though considering the number and quality of sources that ''do'' consider them the same, referring to doing so as a "mistake" would probably be too much.  Do you know of any sources that say "logical is X and British is Y" or "logical and British differ from each other in manner Z"?  Another way to show that sources distinguish between them would be to find a group of sources that say "logical" and describe the system one way and another group that say "British" and describe it a different way.
::As for whether English is descriptive or prescriptive, I'd say it's more relevant that ''this article'' is meant to be descriptive.  If you mean using descriptive or prescriptive sources, though, then we should of course use both style guides and any sociolinguistic studies that apply. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 19:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Are you saying there are no cited reliable sources that say they are different? —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::None that I've ever seen, no.  Do you know of any?  Did Language Log ever address this?  If so, we could say something like, "Professor Smartness, writing in Language Log says these are best considered two different systems." [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
::::And just to head off anything that might trouble anyone's blood pressure, SMC believes that he has provided sources that say this, but I read them, and they don't.  For example, the Guardian article that I cited in my first post of this thread, SMC seems to think this author says they're different, but I read it and I found that it says they're the same.  So please, anything that either of us cites, just look at it for yourself.  That's what the links are for. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::Then we have nothing to discuss here. I'm removing the unsupported tag from the article. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

== [[WP:UNDUE]] weight and source deletion ==

{{User|Darkfrog24}}, presently engaged in a three-day editwarring campaign at [[WP:MOS]] and [[WT:MOS]], just deleted a reliable and properly cited source here at [[Quotation marks in English]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=679452530&oldid=679421951] (cite of a neutral article about logical quotation by a language professor and well-known writer on English language usage, that was used for multiple citations in the article, which DF broke by doing so), and replaced it with an anti-LQ rant from someone's blog. Classic [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:POV]]. This should be reverted, but I don't want to do it myself any time soon, lest I be seen as editwarring, too. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

:SmC, I replaced the Yagoda source because ''you'' said that it wasn't good enough.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=679421951&oldid=679419726]  It's also been criticized by Marsh and CMoS, but no, it wouldn't be edit warring if you put it back alongside the other sources.
:As for the Nichol article, if you click the "About Us" link you'll see that Nichol, like Yagoda, is an expert in this field, so it is usable per [[WP:SPS]].  Frankly, I'm a little insulted.  Of ''course'' I checked it out before I used it in the article space. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
::Please stop making up things about what I said. Here's a direct quote of what I said in that diff: "Logical and British are not the same, just similar." Here's another about the Yagoda article: "neutral source" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&type=revision&diff=679481668&oldid=679455240], and I have three more like it I can dig up (professor notable for language publication, etc.), along with you trying to rely on it as a reliable source, at [[WT:MOS]], when it suits you. My criticism {{em|relating to}} the Yagoda source is you using OR to say things it doesn't actually say, and to treat it like something it isn't (what it is, is an op-ed for a general audience, on a language usage trend, nothing more, and certain not a style guide nor any authoritative source on what names of things and how they differ in fine details that he does not get into). Being an expert doesn't automatically everything someone puts out reliable, and whether it's a usable source depends on how it's used in what context. This problem here is undue weight and misuse of a source to push a PoV agenda. The same one you've been disrupting MoS with for three days (well, 6 years, really). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm not making it up.  SMcC, it is entirely possible to misinterpret what someone is saying without being malicious.  You do it to me all the time.  My belief that you thought the Yagoda source was no good was based on your edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=679421951&oldid=679419726]  If that's not what you meant, that's one thing, but don't act like I'm some wrongdoer for failing to read your mind.  You presumably read my own edit summary, which said "removing contested Yagoda source," and didn't figure out that I thought you were contesting it. Does that mean you're making things up?  And I removed your dispute tag because it looked like you were asking for better sources, which I provided.  You've been snarling at nothing in the shadows for weeks now.  Take a break if you need to.
:::''What'' OR?  If you're going to throw accusations at me, then be clear about what you're talking about.  It's starting to look like you're just scattering your posts with unsubstantiated accusations just to make me look bad.
:::Of course the propriety of using sources depends on context.  That's why you shouldn't object to the Nichol article. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::Making things up does not require malice, just unreality.  My edit summary said "disputing incorrect assertion that logical and British are identical". Given that we've been arguing round in circles for three days about WP saying in WP's voice that they are the same is false, my meaning was obvious (and should have been anyway; I didn't say "disputing unreliable source" or anything to that effect. Twice you're trying to make me feel guilty for misleading you, but I didn't mislead you, you just made up some notion in your own head.  If we were take this "I was doing it because you wanted me to" spiel seriously. No one deletes a reliable source to insert another source; you add the new source.  This is one of the least effective attempts at gaslighting I've ever encountered. My objection, however, was that you deleted the source without consensus or discussion to make a [[WP:POINT]]y insertion of a biased SPS in an inappropriate place, breaking multiple citations in the process. The Yagoda source would have had to go back in no matter what, because other passages cited it. I've already explained what your OR is, about a dozen times. I don't have to go into it on every page you want to ask again after already being told. Your explanation for why you removed my dispute tag is bogus, since you reverted two of them in a row flagging different problems. This "who, me?" act is not going to convince anyone of anything. Skipping the rest of this because it's nothing to do with this article and improving it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::Okay, right there, see where you say, "you're trying to make me feel guilty for misleading you"?  ''No I'm not.'' What I'm actually trying to do is get you to see that even if "I don't like the Yagoda source" isn't what you ''meant'', it is still not that out there for me to think that it was.  Notice: You were wrong about what ''I'' meant.  Does that make you a liar?  No.  Does it make you a vicious edit warrer?  No.  What did I do about it?  Tell you what I actually meant because it was just an honest mistake, which you made because you're not a mind-reader.  Now it's a non-issue.  Now you try.
::::::No, but it is reasonable to replace a source that has been contested as unreliable, which is what I thought you were doing. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

:I am also puzzled by the need to insert an anti-logical punctuation source in the article at this point. It seems needlessly combative and distracting. All we need/should want is a source that defines logical punctuation and not one that rants about it. [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

::That might bear up if the source were being used to say negative things about British/logical style, but it isn't.  The Nichol article is being used as a source for "logical punctuation is another word for British style." This is the same statement that the pro-British/logical Yagoda article was supporting.  If anything, the fact that these two writers with opposite opinions of the system agree about the facts should give them more weight.
::As for sources that define British style without giving value judgments, there's the ''Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies'' under the name "logical" and ''SSF'' under "British." [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Whatever your circular reasoning, multiple editors now object, so you don't have consensus to insert it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::You mean one person with an ongoing grudge-match content dispute objected on reflex, someone else asked a question about it (which may have been answered to his or her satisfaction), and one other person does want it in?  No consensus to remove it either. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::SQGibbon did not ask a question. Why do you insist on distorting what people say in every damned discussion? And accusing of bad faith when people raise objections?  This gives the lie, by the way, to your "oh, I'm only deleting dispute tags because I thought I resolved them for you." You are flip-flopping back and forth between "I'm just being helpful" and "go screw yourself" modes.  Get your act straight, LOL.  The source is disputed by multiple editors, and you have not addressed anything about their objections. It comes out. (Maybe it could go back in later, in a more appropriate way, as a primary source for something, if there's a need for it, and it's cited for the limited things primary sources can be used for, and directly attributed. Right now, though, it's a [[WP:PSTS]] policy violation. That's an additional objection, BTW. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::If you think I'm wrong about what SQG meant, just ping SQG and ask.
::::::SMC, you've gotten pretty invested in this multi-front attack of yours, and one other guy came in with one other issue, which I've addressed.  That's not exactly consensus to remove.  But if you want to take it to NPOVN, that's fine with me. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

:::Sheesh, I didn't realize that this was an ongoing feud. The use of this source is strange. Yes it technically serves the purpose of defining logical punctuation it's just not the sort of source that one would generally use in a neutral article. If you can't see this then I'm really not sure what else there is to say without joining in a protracted feud that I am not going to participate in. Also, I was not asking a question. I do find the use of that particular source in this particular instance contrary to the spirit of creating a neutral encyclopedic article. [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 22:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm pretty sure you're allowed to say this at the NPOVN filing if you want to.
::::Honestly, I didn't figure anyone would mind this article's tone; no one minded using Yagoda in this way, and he's pretty non-neutral himself.  But like I said, I added this article in the first place because I thought the existing source for this point had been challenged, and it's looking like that's a non-issue. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We're up [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Nichol_on_British.2Flogical_punctuation_in_quotation_marks_in_English]. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 11:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
:We're down [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=681872145&oldid=681801632]. Looks like no one cares about this but us.  We can try again if you want, but like I said to SmC above, I don't mind if the Yagoda source is put back alongside the Nichol one. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 21:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

== Lift order of punctuation section from [[Full stop]]? ==
{{Moved discussion to|Full stop#Fowler and Fowler advocated American style?}}
The section on punctuation placement seems messy.  A lot of that is because its current format is a compromise dating from an RfC a few years back.  One solution would be to remodel this section based on [[Full_stop#Punctuation_styles_when_quoting]], which was carefully edited earlier this year.  It's clear, it covers national crossover, and it's a lot shorter (we might want to add to it a little).  Thoughts? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 16:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

:The description of British style there does not match what I took logical style to mean, and is not sourced.  I thought "according to grammatical sense" meant it is OK to include the punctuation inside if it was part of the material quoted, whether or not it also applied to the sentence as a whole.  Perhaps I misunderstood?  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
::It's sourced with ''Scientific Style and Format'' (number 20) and JISS (number 19).  How would you improve upon it? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Neither source verifies that "according to the sense" means what it says it means there.  Whose interpretation was this?  Ah, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full_stop&diff=next&oldid=684164777 this diff] is what fails to verify.  It's you.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Maybe that explains why you were claiming so many featured articles didn't conform to LQ.  You should learn what it is.  Anyway, let's fix that one, not lift it into this article.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
::::''JISS'' says "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation" and gives the following examples [http://web.archive.org/web/20110410233640/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/riiss/Documents/JISS%20Style%20Guide%20revised%20FV.pdf]:
:::::''Jane said that the situation is ‘deplorable’. (When a sentence fragment is quoted, the period is outside.)  
:::::''Jane said, ‘The situation is deplorable.’ (The period is part of the quoted text.)  
:::::''Chris asked, ‘Are you coming?’ (When quoting a question, the question mark belongs inside because the quoted text itself was a question.)  
:::::''Did Chris say, ‘Come with me’? (The very quote is being questioned, so here, the question mark is correctly outside; the period in the original quote is omitted.)''
::::''Scientific Style and Format'' says: "In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed according to the sense." It gives several examples but here are two (scroll down to the next page [https://books.google.com/books?id=PoFJ-OhE63UC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=%22quotation+marks%22+%22according+to+sense%22+British&source=bl&ots=2Vlh-GBz0j&sig=SrMxN2GNFZ2Zhmk2n3hou-65Y3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIl5O7tazbxwIVizw-Ch2woQ2U#v=onepage&q=%22quotation%20marks%22%20%22according%20to%20sense%22%20British&f=false]):
:::::''He saw the ecological effects as 'an utter disaster'.
:::::''His brief note was 'A disaster!'.
::::There are more.  Do these examples provide the verification that you need?  If not, what do you think would be better? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::Not really.  The definition that JISS gives is OK:  "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation."  That's OK.  And the example ''Jane said that the situation is ‘deplorable’.'' is OK, too.  But then they have that odd explanatory parenthetical that goes too far: ''(When a sentence fragment is quoted, the period is outside.)''  Here I must presume that they overrreached in their explanation, and didn't mean that ALL sentence fragments would require putting the punctuation outside, and didn't mean to further restrict the definition via that explanation.  This is just odd, as an interpretation of "grammatical sense" or of "only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation".  Your second source does not seem to imply such a jump, and I've not seen it in other sources (but I'd have to go back and study to know for sure).  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::Well, we have literally dozens of other sources to choose from.  What information do you think should be added. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 00:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I'll just start by removing the interpretation that you added that does not verify.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Another editor has begun to contribute to this discussion at the Full stop talk page.  It may be best to take matters there for now. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I concur, since similar cleanup needs to happen there, and was proposed much sooner, but an editor uninvolved in any of our disputes. There's no point in merging broken material between two articles. They both need to be fixed first, requiring very substantial rewriting. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

== Preparing for Call Center Interviews--RS? Oxford Dictionaries--correct? ==

User {{ping|Dicklyon}} just added ''Preparing for Call Center Interviews'' as a source (book, 2007, by Namrata Palta, Lotus Press, New Delhi).  I'm not sure it's suitable. [https://books.google.com/books?id=pPjtYYCFITAC&pg=PA100&dq=quotation+comma+british+american+inside&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ_bGT-67KAhUH8GMKHYdBBikQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=quotation%20comma%20british%20american%20inside&f=false] It certainly ''is'' a published book, but I think it may have been playing it fast and loose considering that punctuation is outside its expressed purview.  For example, I read a statistics textbook once that said "because humans have 48 chromosomes, the number of possible genetic combinations is (exponent)," which isn't true because it neglects the process of crossing over that takes place during [[meiosis]].  The source was RS, but it wasn't right about something outside its wheelhouse.  The claim that American style was established for typographical reasons, for example, is usually copied off the old version of this page, which was not at that time properly sourced (old forum post).

The text that this source was added to support was "With regard to quotation marks adjacent to periods and commas, there are two styles of punctuation in widespread use. These two styles are most commonly referred to as "American" and "British" (the latter of which is also called "logical quotation"). Both systems have the same rules regarding question marks, exclamation points, colons, and semicolons. However, they differ on the treatment of periods and commas." We can probably find many more sources that establish this.

If there is no objection, I'll remove PCCI tomorrow.  If there is any objection, we'll keep talking. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 19:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

:Dicklyon, the very page of PCCI that you linked to cites Oxford Dictionaries as a source.  Clearly PCCI thinks that OD is okay. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

::The online Oxford page that you linked has an error in its example, which is why I think we should prefer other sources.  It has this:
{{quote | She still sounds amazed when she says: ‘We were turned down because “we represented too small a minority of the population”. They could still get away with saying things like that then.’}}
::Note that the internal quote is either a complete sentence or the end of a sentence, but is not punctuated as such.  If they really to say by this punctuation that it's not a complete sentence, they would have said so. Either way, it's either an error, misleading, or confusing.  In some interpretations of British style, that period would not go inside if it's not a complete sentence, but it logical style it would, if it's the end of sentence, as some sources describe the difference.  Anyway, it's a mess.  Mixing up all the single/double stuff with the inside/outside stuff doesn't help.  The PCCI book is much more clear.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
:::That actually looks correct to me.  At least, it's consistent with what the other sources say (both those that say "British" and those that say "logical"): That period belongs to the sentence as a whole, so it's placed outside the quotation marks (Chicago).  The sense of the punctuation is not part of the quotation (JISS). We also don't know whether there was a period after "population" or a comma.  The original quote might have been "we represented too small a minority of the population, and our needs were not representative," which makes it consistent with your interpretation of "logical" as well. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::::OK, looks right, meaning it seems likely that they intended to signal that the inner sentence did not end there.  Seems odd to me that they would make something up, pretend it doesn't end where it seems to, and use that without comment in an example about single versus double quotation marks (section [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/quotation-marks-american Direct speech within direct speech]).  And above that it says "In British English ... any associated punctuation is placed outside the closing quotation mark", which is NOT what we call logical punctuation, and is also not what they follow with any consistency in their examples.  I think it would be impossible for a reader to learn either British or logical style (or whether they are the same or not) from the statements and examples on this Oxford page.  
::::So why do you like it?  Just that it associates the styles with the dialects?  That also seems like an error; most sources talk about this as more regional and house style, not really connected to dialect.  In all countries, logical style is more common in technical than in informal writing, which has little correlation with dialect.  
::::Other Oxford works, such as ''New Hart's Rules'', are much more careful in explaining the systems and their usage patterns, and do not tie these to dialects. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::Why do I like it?  SmC has brought up "only the ''American'' sources do X" and Oxford D. is as British and as respectable as they come.  But yes, the fact that it says straight-out "in British English," as you've brought up, also gives it some appeal for me.  It seems obvious to me that these punctuation styles are part of British English and American English, respectively, but this is Wikipedia.  My observations are no more or less important than anyone else's.  It helps to have a source that actually says so.
:::::Do you have a source that says OD is wrong on this, or enough sources that show its take here is a fluke?  Or some other reason to doubt it, the way that PfCCI looks like it could have been a copy of the old Wikipedia page?
:::::If it's the "in British English" that's bothering you, I'll point out that OD is not alone in including punctuation under "British English" and "American English": A [http://writing.umn.edu/sws/quickhelp/punctuation/quotationmarks.html University of Minnesota] style guide says "periods and commas go inside quotation marks in American English but outside quotation marks in British English."  [http://www.gsbe.co.uk/grammar-quotation-marks.html Grammar and Style in British English] says "Quotation marks (or inverted commas) may be used singly or doubly. Single marks are generally preferred in British English, while double marks are obligatory in American English." There are also sub- and questionably reliable sources that do this, such as blogs and self-made sites, like this one: [http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/british-versus-american-style.html The Punctuation Guide] says "Mr., Mrs., and Ms. all take periods in American English. In British English, the periods are omitted."
:::::...you know what might be relevant?  You keep saying "this isn't dialect." Where did you get that idea?  That's not rhetorical: Is there a linguistics textbook or something that says it's wrong to refer to punctuation as part of British English? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 03:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::That Minnesota source is obviously complete crap.  Too lame to bother with, since they don't even get British style approximately right: "(periods and commas go inside quotation marks in American English but outside quotation marks in British English)".
::::::I don't have a source that argues that it's not dialect, but quite a few sources do talk about it as usage and convention in different regions and genres without connecting it to dialect.  Britsh fiction and journalism use something like the American style.  Some American scientific guides recommend logical or more like British style.  How can these be dialect issues?  They're pretty much orthogonal to things like colour/color or the singular/plural treatment of collective nouns.  If they're dialect, they're not along the usual AmE/BrE axis.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::"Complete crap"?  Consider taking a break, Dicklyon.  It's a style guide page that's meant to instruct on American English. Of course it pays more attention to that than to British.  The line that it is meant to support is "they differ in the treatment of periods and commas," and it says that directly.  I'll add a quote to make this clear.
:::::::So Oxford Dictionaries and University of Minnesota call it "British English," and no one says "don't call it British English." I think we have our answer. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 13:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::OK, too strong.  By "complete crap" on [http://writing.umn.edu/sws/quickhelp/punctuation/quotationmarks.html this ref] I meant that it is bullshit to point to that as supporting anything about the question at hand.  The only thing is says about British quotation make placement is wrong.  At least it finishes with a good idea:  "Note: Each citation style, like MLA or APA, has its own rules for using other punctuation with quotation marks. Check a style guide to see how to punctuate quotes properly in your discipline."  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::As to your other illogic, what is it that's being called "British English"?  I think we're all OK with that as a dialect in contrast with American English.  And there are sources that call our style "logical"; and none that say don't call it that.  So that's settled. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Your last sentence or two has gotten a little incoherent there.  The thing that is being called part of British English is the British punctuation practice described in this article.  Per Chicago 16, this one system usually involves placement by grammatical sense or grammatical logic but has exceptions that involve original position; it uses the term "British" for the whole thing.  JISS refers to placement by grammatical sense as "logical quotation." OUP refers to placement by sense as just "British." It's safe to say that the sources use the terms interchangeably. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:I've never said "only American sources do {{var|X}}" about anything under discussion here; please stop projecting straw man fantasies.  This weird example from Oxford illustrates and proves that "Brtish quotation" is not a single style.  But actually reading British style guides instead of going along with cherry picked American style guides in making incorrect assumptions about them, already made that clear for everyone here, except apparently one editor.  The majority of both British and American publications would have had:{{tq|She still sounds amazed when she says: 'We were turned down because "we represented too small a minority of the population." They could still get away with saying things like that then.'}}  In theory anyway.  The internal quote doesn't actually track; it's purporting to be the expression of whoever did the turning down, but it includes the ''we'' of those who were turned down.  So it would probably be {{tq|She still sounds amazed when she says: 'We were turned down because we "represented too small a minority of the population". ...'}}. At that point it would be a sentence fragment (albeit an almost complete one) so many British sources would then have the punctuation as {{tq|"...population".}}.  But not all of them.  Logical quotation would permit either placement, simply not falsification of period as a comma or semicolone inside the quote, if the structure were changed to something like {{tq|She says, 'We were turned down because we "represented too small a minority of the population", and still sounds amazed. 'They could still ....'}} A large number of British publishers would have {{tq|...population,"}} here just like American journalism would, and this is proof that BQ is not LQ.  Of course we went over this 20 times before in every other forum, so I'm don't expect the one editor who doesn't get it to suddenly get it this time in this venue. ''The Guardian'' already told us publicly that this article is making an error on this very matter in this article several years ago, yet largely because of the FUD-injecting behavior of a single editor it's not been corrected. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
::It's the Chicago Manual of Style, which you've sometimes cited yourself.  I didn't cherry pick it.  And Oxford Dictionaries ''is'' British.  But if you don't like it, here's Oxford University Press via the British ''Scientific Style and Format'': "In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."[https://books.google.com/books?id=PoFJ-OhE63UC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=%22quotation+marks%22+%22according+to+sense%22+British&source=bl&ots=2Vlh-GBz0j&sig=SrMxN2GNFZ2Zhmk2n3hou-65Y3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIl5O7tazbxwIVizw-Ch2woQ2U#v=onepage&q=%22quotation%20marks%22%20%22according%20to%20sense%22%20British&f=false] 
::I do not agree with you that interior comma placement such as you describe is proof that "British" and "logical" are not two terms for the same thing.  In the sources that I've seen so far, the terms are used interchangeably.  What I would find convincing would be if we had either sources that said so explicitly or if we could line up all the sources that say "logical" and all the sources that say "British" and find that they say different things, enough to show that the ones that do otherwise are flukes/outliers/not statistically significant.  I know I've said this to you before, but consider it a standing offer. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
::::It's not our job to kowtow to a lone participant's [[WP:FILIBUSTER]]ing, [[WP:NOR|OR]] and "belief". Other editors are not obligated to take your "offers" and "what [you] would find convincing" seriously.<p>The ''CMoS'' is (I think we all agree) a largely reliable source when it comes to what it (among many other such works) helps define, namely the general practices of common-denominator, non-journalism, and otherwise non-specialized American publication style. It does not define, and is not a reliable source for, anything it simply glosses over or has a clear bias against, such as logical quotation, "British" (Commonwealth) styles, their definitions, and how they differ. On these matters it is vague, and vacillates between deferential and antagonistic. It defers, for three editions in a row, to ''The New Hacker's Dictionary'', an LQ source, for "computer writing", and defers to Oxford, et al., for British styles, and to linguistics sources on linguistic use of LQ, etc., but tries in vain to convince philosophy publishers to abandon their context-specific use of LQ in their own field (which they've been using since at least the 19th c.), a matter on which ''CMoS'' is clearly a [[WP:PSTS|primary source]] of activism, not a secondary authority.</p><p>The clear problem here is in assuming that a sometimes-secondary source that is reliable for some things within its purview, is always a reliable secondary source for everything for which someone might want it to be.  [[WP:RS]] doesn't work that way.  It's exactly the same thing as trying to cite a zoology source that glosses over some distinctions between two species of similar plants, and conflates them in passing, as somehow more reliable on the matter than the botanical sources that define and distinguish those plants in detail as different species.  It's long past time to stop persisting in this farce.  It doesn't matter how much you love ''CMoS''; there is no One World Holy Authority on English.  If there were, it sure as hell wouldn't be ''CMoS'', which is riddled with errors. Not just of interpretation but of demonstrable fact, ranging from citing sources that do not even address what ''CMoS'' cites them for, to ''CMoS'' directly contradicting itself from example to example, both in the same section.  I could go on, but every second spent arguing with you feels like a waste of time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)</p>
:::::SmC, you've seen that the content I've added is backed up by sources.  Claims of WP:OR are inappropriate.  You don't have to change your mind and agree with me, but you do have to stop claiming OR.  Or, on the off-chance that I've misunderstood you somehow, what exactly do you think I've synthesized?  I'm not being rhetorical.  I want to understand your side of this.
:::::I keep referring to "what I personally would find convincing" because you seem very upset that I personally do not agree with you.  I'm trying to explain why I haven't changed my mind.  You say that arguing with me is a waste of time.  That's because, from my perspective, you keep repeating your take on the matter over and over but haven't backed it up with sources.  Result: I respect your right to your own opinion but I'm not convinced that it is more than your own opinion.
:::::Common-denominator, non-specialist, non-journalism writing is exactly what we do on Wikipedia.
:::::I agree that sources can be reliable for some things and not others.  That's where my skepticism of PCCI is coming from.  However, I'm confident that CMoS has it right on this matter.  This is because I have seen sources that agree with it and a few sources that don't take a position but none that disagree with it.  If you know of what you consider to be a more specific source, that would be relevant.  I wasn't kidding any of the times I said I'd support changing the article if the right sources for it turned up.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=prev&oldid=679625230] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=679669830&oldid=679656455] "While the Chicago Manual of Style and X and Y say that 'logical' and 'British' styles are the same thing, Dr. So-and-so, writing in such-and-such says they are not" or "the sources are split on whether this is one system with two names and a few exceptions or two separate systems.  General style guides like CMoS and OUP say X but these two others say Y." So long as it's neutral and proportionate and sourced, why not?
:::::It's a bit of a mystery to me why you keep saying "Other sources say this" but haven't mentioned them by name in this discussion or used them in the article space yet.  You don't have to if you don't want to, and you don't have to share your reasons, but that's where my head is on this.  I hope we understand each other better now.
:::::I'll flip this around: What sort of thing do you find convincing? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 09:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::To belatedly answer, I find convincing here one thing only: [[WP:CORE]]. In long form: Use of all of the available, applicable, reliable sources, being used neutrally – and without novel synthesis, pre-conceived evaluation, or personal and idiosyncratic reinterpretation – factoring in the sum total of their applicable material not just convenient parts; to verify the claims for which they are high-quality, secondary sources of [[[WP:TRUTH|probable]]] facts, without undue weight when they are tertiary or weaker secondary sources for certain ideas, and not at all (unless with direct attribution, if the consensus view is that inclusion seems necessary) when they are primary sources for potentially controversial claims, or probably erroneous because the preponderance of other reliable sources contradicts them, or obsolete.  How to write Wikipedia in a nutshell (albeit a run-on one). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{hat|Thread about now-topicbanned user does not directly relate to improvement of this article.}}

== Too much darkness? ==

Why is the vast majority of the talk from DarkFrog24?  If that were turned down, wouldn't we have a relatively sensible situation here?  Do we need all this noise?  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

* [[Talk:Quotation marks in English]]
* en.wikipedia.org
* Total revisions: 485
* Number of editors: 167
* 2016-01-17 07:21:21

<sup>1</sup> Number of edits<br />
<sup>2</sup> Average time between edits
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Username
!#<sup>1</sup>
!Minor edits
!%
!First edit
!Latest edit
!atbe<sup>2</sup>
!Added (Bytes)	
|-
| [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] || 97 || 10 || 10.3 || 2010-02-01, 15:58 || 2016-01-17, 03:33 || 22.4 || 48,863
|-
| [[User:Abtract|Abtract]] || 20 || 7 || 35 || 2006-09-26, 12:27 || 2007-10-02, 22:38 || 18.6 || 5,937
|-
| [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] || 18 || 5 || 27.8 || 2011-10-28, 00:05 || 2015-09-05, 08:42 || 78.2 || 16,692
|-
| [[User:Davilla~enwiki|Davilla~enwiki]] || 18 || 4 || 22.2 || 2005-07-22, 18:37 || 2006-02-12, 23:45 || 11.4 || 3,501
|-
| [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] || 17 || 0 || 0 || 2010-02-15, 02:10 || 2010-02-18, 06:13 || 0.2 || 6,943
|-
| [[User:IanMSpencer|IanMSpencer]] || 12 || 3 || 25 || 2005-09-21, 12:49 || 2007-09-20, 17:00 || 60.8 || 6,087
|-
| [[User:SineBot|SineBot]] || 11 || 11 || 100 || 2008-03-12, 02:41 || 2012-11-06, 14:55 || 154.6 || 3,236
|-
| [[User:Mzajac|Mzajac]] || 9 || 2 || 22.2 || 2005-10-10, 18:31 || 2007-09-18, 07:45 || 78.6 || 2,988
|-
| [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] || 9 || 0 || 0 || 2004-05-05, 23:17 || 2007-01-15, 15:32 || 109.4 || 1,516
|-
| [[User:Elektron|Elektron]] || 8 || 2 || 25 || 2004-06-14, 07:03 || 2007-09-22, 13:02 || 149.4 || 4,016
|-
| [[User:Turkeyphant|Turkeyphant]] || 7 || 1 || 14.3 || 2014-10-17, 02:59 || 2014-10-23, 17:59 || 0.9 || 3,832
|-
| [[User:Menchi|Menchi]] || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 2003-06-26, 08:29 || 2004-05-06, 05:08 || 52.5 || 554
|-
| [[User:Tokek|Tokek]] || 5 || 1 || 20 || 2005-06-24, 23:38 || 2005-07-30, 21:05 || 7.2 || 1,156
|-
| [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2016-01-16, 19:22 || 2016-01-17, 07:18 || 0.1 || 3,590
|-
| [[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2013-05-12, 21:42 || 2015-09-06, 19:41 || 169.4 || 1,606
|-
| [[User:Mark R Johnson|Mark R Johnson]] || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2010-03-22, 16:17 || 2010-07-16, 22:17 || 23.2 || 2,605
|-
| [[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] || 5 || 0 || 0 || 2010-01-07, 00:40 || 2010-02-15, 06:26 || 7.8 || 540
|-
|}

Come on, don't make this personal.  Don't look at how many Wikipedians believe that something is sensible.  Look at how many sources support it. ([[WP:V]])  If I'm doing the work of many editors, good. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 13:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

:When you completely dominate the sum of all other voices in talk pages, it's personal.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
::If the thing I'm doing to "dominate" is offering sources and asking other people to do the same, then no it's not.  That's how Wikipedia works. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 21:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:::You aren't doing the work of many editors, though it's interesting to observe your lack of [[WP:5THWHEEL]] humility in that regard. You're single-mindedly pursuing a single [[WP:NOR|OR]]-based [[WP:NPOV|PoV]], the false insistence that logical quotation is some kind of British imposition and is "wrong" to ever use in American English. You've been pushing this angle for almost 7 years, at [[WP:MOS]] and its related pages, here in mainspace, even at Wiktionary.  You know it's false (have had it demonstrated to you, whether you accept it or not – I'm not projecting anything about your mental state). Everyone else knows it's false. The sources prove it's false, but your [[WP:OWN]]ish patterns basically don't let anyone else get in a word edgewise, at least not for long because of the "slow-editwar" pattern you also employ – you just wait a bit until maybe no one is looking and just change it all to say what you want it to say again.  This cannot continue indefinitely. I've been leaving this alone for several months out of the good-faith expectation that you'll snap out of these patterns, but I don't see any evidence this is going to happen; if anything, it's just been getting worse.  You're not "offering more sources", you're deleting ones you don't like, inserting questionable ones like ranty blogs, and mis-citing reliable ones on one point to support things they don't actually support other points. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
::::I considered saying this to Dicklyon earlier today, but the truth is I don't have enough reason to think it applies to him.  SMcCandlish, you have your own ideas and beliefs and pet peeves about English and you don't like that someone&mdash;me in this case&mdash;is telling you "you need a source for that" and "this source doesn't actually say that." (Please note that I wasn't kidding all the times when I said "if you find a source, great.") And I didn't consider saying this to Dicklyon: Your position is not reasonable.  Chicago, Oxford, other style guides, university websites, magazine articles, and journals from both sides of the Atlantic and sometimes the Pacific refer to these practices as "British" and "American." ''You do not get to cite OR or NPOV when I agree with them.''
::::As for demonstrating that those sources are wrong, when do you think you did that?  Not rhetorical.  Your thought process is different from mine, so I'm going to AGF and suppose that maybe you think you showed me proof, but whatever it was, it didn't look like proof, to the point where I didn't know that's what you thought you were doing and don't know when you think you did it.  For example, I think that all the websites and style guides that say "American style" and "in American English" are very convincing, but you clearly don't feel that way.
::::And "not getting a word in edgewise"? Pot, kettle.  You're the longest-winded person here. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quotation_marks_in_English&action=history sources] don't support your claim that SMcC is the longest-winded.  One of your many edits of the last few days is longer than his only edit, and several more are competitive for longness.  Your 1-day total of around 7 KB is way bigger than his only recent comment here.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::By "longest-winded one here," I mean on Wikipedia.  In general, SmC goes on more than I do.  You know this perfectly well.  If nothing else, you've seen his comment on that thread RG started about us. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 12:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Yes he does make a few very long posts.  You, on the other hand, are incessantly long winded on topics like this one.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 17:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Another major difference is that I what I post is actually point-by-point responsive (which often accounts for the length), not [[hand-waving]] and [[circular reasoning]], but whatever.  This will all be sorted out soon enough with proper, not cherry-picked, sourcing, in prodigious volume, as soon as I get a long enough work-break. It'll include the dozens of sources that a certain now-topic-banned editor kept pretending had not been presented for them to ignore, and many more. I have almost every major style guide on hand, either in paper form or e-pub, and the rest will arrive within a few weeks, depending on Media Mail delays. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Speaking of long-windedness... ==
{{Moved discussion to|Full stop#Fowler and Fowler advocated American style?}}
Since we're getting a little traffic on this talk page, what do you two think of this?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quotation_marks_in_English#Lift_order_of_punctuation_section_from_Full_stop.3F] I'd have implemented it a week or so after proposing it, but by then MOS:SUPPORTS had gotten active.  Now that that's died down, what do you think? [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
:Commented there.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

== About "Typesetters' Quotation" ==

I have something to ask about "Typesetters' Punctuation/Quotation.": Exactly how were those particular pieces of type possibly going to break or be damaged so easily, and what were those pieces of type even made of? Also, I am pretty sure that this article may or may not explain the origin of "Typesetters' Punctuation/Quotation.". Does it? [[User:Jim856796|Jim856796]] ([[User talk:Jim856796|talk]]) 04:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

== Ending the sentence ==

I did not get from the examples and text, whether this is allowed/preferred in British quotation - the period outside the quotation:

:She said, "Hello, world".

== Do the closing single quotation mark and the apostrophe ever differ in form? ==

According to the lead section, "The closing single quotation mark is identical or similar in form to the apostrophe&hellip;".  No example is given, however, of a font with different glyphs for the two, nor have I ever encountered such a font.  Unless someone objects, I shall delete the words "or similar".

[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 00:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:That would muddle meaning and display. One could easily design a new font in which the glyphs for a closing single quotation mark and apostrophe are different. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 11:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
::Would it be "easy" to arrange that your new font be accessible to word-processing programs?  That it becomes permissible in the {{tlg|Font}} template?  Right now, the code point for the right single quotation mark is U+2019; for your new curved apostrophe, wouldn't you have to request a new code point from the Unicode Consortium? Once <u>these</u> matters are taken care of, I would have no basis to complain about "or similar".  Until then, however, I think that my complaint stands.  To be sure, it relies on the current status of word processors, Wikipedia, and Unicode, but I see nothing objectionable in such reliance.  [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 16:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
:::I may not have explained myself properly. An example of an apostrophe (U+0027) with a different shape to a single closing quotation mark (U+2019) can seen at [https://www.pubcom.com/blog/2013_12-03/quote-marks_Unicode_450px.png], taken from [https://www.pubcom.com/blog/2013_12-03/unicode-accessibility.html#solution2]. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 16:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Is the closing single quotation mark identical to the apostrophe{{snd}}i.e. is it the same thing{{snd}}or is it a different entity with either the same form or a similar one?  Following ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'', I opt for the former.  Since it must have the same form as itself, it is not merely similar.  Sometimes it functions in one capacity, sometimes in another. [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 01:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
:::::You are still confusing presentation and content. The apostrophe, represented in Unicode by a value of U+0027, is not the same as a closing single quotation mark, represented by the value U+2019. The appearance of the two may be identical or, as in the example I referenced above, different. The ' character on your keyboard is an apostrophe. Technological limitations have meant that for convenience it's often used, including on Wikipedia, as both an opening and closing single quotation mark; an error as quotes do not start and end with an apostrophe. (A similar issue arises, less frequently, with the ` grave accent U+0060, sometimes used as an opening single quotation mark.) Having said all that, the differences between an apostrophe and a single closing quotation mark is, at a practical level, fuzzy to say the least. Some software, such as MS Word, is able to detect this and use instead the values for opening and closing single quotation marks (U+2018 and U+2019 respectively), although moves the problem in the other direction by also replacing apostrophes with the former; other software, including Wikipedia, does not, keeping instead U+0027 for both quotations and apostrophes. Your change to the article (a bit premature and disrespectful considering this discussion is still taking place) has overlooked the image I referenced for you earlier, and fails by using an absolute term such as "identicial" to take into account the impreciseness of the subject at hand; I have undone it and reworded the original. (The treatment of the same issues by the [[apostrophe]] article is less prescriptive and, in my view, clearer.) [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 11:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the disrespect. After starting this discussion, I found a clear statement in ''[[The Chicago Manual of Style]]'' which I cited in my edit to the article, which you have reverted.  It reads, "The apostrophe is the same character as the right single quotation mark (defined for Unicode as U+2019&hellip;)."  I thought this settled the matter.  In turn, I complain that you should not be replacing Wikipedia text that contains a bona fide reference with contrary text that does not.

You claim that using U+0027 as a quotation mark is an error, even though is prescribed by the [[MOS:STRAIGHT|Wikipedia MOS]] and used consistently by sources such as [[Al Jazeera English]].  At least in Wikipedia's case, this is not a matter of convenience, since {{Code|&lsquo;}} and {{Code|&rsquo;}} are readily available.  You also complain about the fact that [[Microsoft Word|MS Word]] uses U+2019 for the apostrophe (as does [[The New York Times]]{{snd}}see [https://www.nytimes.com/ the current front page] which refers to "The Watergate class of ’74" using U+2019).  Also check out [[The Manchester Guardian]].  If a usage is widespread among reputable publications, it's doubtful that it can be called an error.

[https://www.pubcom.com/blog/2013_12-03/unicode-accessibility.html#solution2 Your source] is self-contradictory.  It says, "A Unicode font might have several different characters for a symbol that looks like a single quote mark, but only one of them is a true single quote" and then goes on to identify <u>both</u> U+2018 and U+2019 as true single quotes. [[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 17:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

:It seems we're probably talking cross-purposes here. Approaching this from a data-representation viewpoint (as I would with a career history which includes that), I cannot agree with the statement that apostrophes are identical to closing single quotation marks: the Unicode encoding definitions are to the contrary,with APOSTROPHE U+0027, LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK U+2018 and RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK U+2019 the relevant codepoints. The last two of those are the  the opening and closing instances of the "true single quote" marks in my reference (which you have stated is self-contradictory). The Unicode definition for APOSTROPHE U+0027 states that it is a neutral glyph with mixed usage, and that U+2019 is preferred for apostrophe. The last comment fits with the adoption of U+2019 by various publishers, style guides and software as a result of the glyph for APOSTROPHE usually being represented neutrally as '. Wikipedia itself seems to get slightly confused by instructing us to use ''"straight" quotation marks, not “curly” ones. (For single apostrophe quotes: 'straight', not ‘curly’)''. In view of this convoluted and ambiguous picture painted by various sources, I would suggest that the current wording you originally had an issue with is replaced with something similar to the final paragraph in [[apostrophe]]'s lede. For starters, perhaps "''The closing single quotation mark looks identical or similar to an [[apostrophe]] in many fonts; although they have different meanings Unicode recommends using the quotation mark character to represent most uses of the apostrophe. Many publishers and style guides follow this recommendation **references to NY times and TCMoS**, and it is implemented in popular word-processing software such as [[Microsoft Word]] and **Apple equivalent**. The closing single quotation mark may also look similar to, but is not the same as, the [[Prime (symbol)|prime symbol]] (&nbsp;'&nbsp;), and the [[´]]&nbsp;(acute) character. Similarly, the opening single quotation mark may be confused with the [[ʻokina]] (&nbsp;{{okina}}&nbsp;).''"; any further development of this would be helpful. Note, please, that what you attribute to me as complaints were not written by me as such; rather, observations. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

::Let us get straight that we're not discussing the prime symbol U+2032, the {{okina}}okina U+02BB, or the acute accent U+00B4.  These are outside the scope of our discussion.

::As regards Unicode's definitions, [[Talk:Unicode#Number of issues]] lists nearly one hundred cases in which they are in error.  I'm not going to be persuaded by these definitions.

::You say that U+2018 and U+2019 are different <u>instances</u> of the "true single quote" (henceforth TSQ).  Your source, however, refers only to <u>characters</u>, not instances.  It clearly implies that the TSQ is a character but declines to say which character it is. Are you suggesting that one character, like U+2019, can, in some sense, be an "instance" of another, like the TSQ?  Might the TSQ be an instance of yet another character?

::Your source also refers refers to the way a character ''looks'', which is an error; glyphs may appear one way or another, but the corresponding characters are abstract entities without a determinate appearance.

::You say that the glyph for APOSTROPHE is "usually" represented as '.  Citation needed (exclusive of Unicode).

::I find the Wikipedia MOS quite clear, not "convoluted and ambiguous". What is the problem?

::Your italicized proposal refers to the meaning of a character.  I don't think that, out of context, a character has a unique meaning any more than a word does.  ("Does", in some contexts, is the plural of "doe" rather than a third‑person verb.) The function of U+2019{{snd}}loosely, its meaning{{snd}} depends on whether or not the context pairs it with U+2018.

::It seems to me that calling something an error is a way of complaining about it.  Perhaps we interpret "complain" diffently. Whatever.

::[[User:Peter M. Brown|Peter Brown]] ([[User talk:Peter M. Brown|talk]]) 21:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

:::My original concern was only that you had decided unilaterally that closing single quotation marks are always, without exception, identical to apostrophes. You seem consider any view contrary to that, even when made in good faith, unacceptable. In the face of that, I have nothing further to contribute. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 22:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

== Ditto mark ==

The article says:
{{quote|"The typographic closing double quotation mark and the neutral double quotation mark are {{em|similar to}}—and sometimes stand in for—the [[ditto mark]] and the [[double prime|double prime symbol]]." ({{em|emphasis}} added)}}
If I understand correctly, that is somewhat incorrect. These are not just {{em|similar to}} the ditto mark; they ''are'' the ditto mark (in English). There is no separate character code provided for ditto marks in English. Is that correct? —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 22:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

== Use of square brackets within quotation marks ==

{{Yo|Bazza 7}} You reverted my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quotation_marks_in_English&diff=next&oldid=991282133 contribution] to this article with the edit summary, {{tqqi|that's interesting, but dealt with in the [[square bracket]] article and off-topic here (this is an article about quotation marks in English, not [[quotations]])}}.

But the [[quotations]] article appears to be about the linguistic phenomena of quoting; the word "typographic" appears only once in that article, but twenty-two times in this article. And this article is hardly strictly confined to the topic of quotation marks themselves but includes all manner of related information, like what key combinations to press to insert them in different operating systems, and the fact that they need to be accompanied by backslashes / escaped when nested in some programming languages.

The whole reason I ended up tracking down this information is because I came to this specific article looking for it, first, and couldn't find it, then ended up elbow-deep in the ''AP Stylebook'' before its instruction to never use square brackets (in news articles, apparently because of some twentieth-century technological problem, which I wouldn't be surprised to find is derived from telegraph encoding standard issues or something like that originally) sent me back to Wikipedia to look at the brackets article.

I hardly reproduced any of the seven-paragraph associated subsection of the brackets article; so '''tl;dr''' can we at least include a ''single sentence'', so that someone who comes to this article looking for the same information I did—how to denote a [[parenthesis (rhetoric)]] inside quotation marks in the most orthodox fashion—can find their way there? --<span class="unicode" style="color:black;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Struthious Bandersnatch|‿Ꞅ<span style="font-variant:small-caps">truthious</span> 𝔹<span style="font-variant:small-caps">andersnatch</span> ͡]]</span> [[User talk:Struthious Bandersnatch|&#124;℡&#124;]] 13:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Struthious Bandersnatch}} Hello, I thought your addition was too much an aside from the main subject, which is the form and usage of quotation marks in the English language. I did wonder about how to include a single sentence which might point to a more pertinent article about how deviations from a quotation might be portrayed, but failed. I would consider such an addition by you as useful and helpful, if you have one and can find the article to point to (such as [[Bracket#Citations]]?). [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 13:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
::{{Yo|Bazza 7}} How about the first sentence from my previous contribution?{{pb}}{{tqbm|A late-twentieth-century and twenty-first century convention is the use of [[Square bracket#Uses in published text|square brackets]] to mark off words or characters between the quotation marks that were not present in the original material such as paraphrasing, changes in [[capitalization]], non-[[vocable]] sounds in a [[transcription (service)|transcription]] of an [[Sound recording and reproduction|audio recording]], etc.}}{{pb}}It seems like the same sort of information as the currently-included sentence, {{tqqi|Other languages use an [[escape character]], often the [[backslash]], as in <code><nowiki>'eat \'hot\' dogs'</nowiki></code>}} except that it's about punctuation used in coordination with quotation marks in English-language prose, rather than in programming languages derived from English and other human languages. --<span class="unicode" style="color:black;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Struthious Bandersnatch|‿Ꞅ<span style="font-variant:small-caps">truthious</span> 𝔹<span style="font-variant:small-caps">andersnatch</span> ͡]]</span> [[User talk:Struthious Bandersnatch|&#124;℡&#124;]] 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Struthious Bandersnatch}} Hello, that looks along the right track, but as it's dealt with in more detail at the target article, it could be shortened to be more general: {{tqbm|A convention is the use of [[Square bracket#Uses in published text|square brackets]] to indicate content between the quotation marks that has been modified from, or was not present in, the original material.}} I've omitted the era when this started as a reference is needed; reinstate if you have one. Same applies if you're attached to your original suggestion. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 17:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
::::{{Yo|Bazza 7}} Looks good to me.  I've put it in the same place I had originally, under [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAMEE}}#Order of punctuation|§Order of punctuation]], but feel free to move it if there's a better place. --<span class="unicode" style="color:black;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Struthious Bandersnatch|‿Ꞅ<span style="font-variant:small-caps">truthious</span> 𝔹<span style="font-variant:small-caps">andersnatch</span> ͡]]</span> [[User talk:Struthious Bandersnatch|&#124;℡&#124;]] 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

== This article isn't in British English so we should remove the "use British English" template ==

In British English these aren't even called quotation marks at all, they're called inverted commas or speech marks. I am going to remove the template, because it's easier than renaming the article and rewriting the article to use the different terms. [[User:Mvolz|Mvolz]] ([[User talk:Mvolz|talk]]) 10:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:I speak British English (only) and disagree. So do Oxford Dictionaries [https://www.lexico.com/definition/quotation_mark]. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 13:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:: In school at least in the South of England my children are being taught they're called speech marks or inverted commas. (Example where the BBC says this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zvwwxnb/articles/ztcp97h). Regional difference maybe? 
:: Plus- Oxford English Dictionary also doesn't /really/ agree. See: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/156901 entry for Quotation where it is included - they define quotation mark as "In English, an inverted comma". Inverted comma gets its own definition here http://oed.com/view/Entry/74223983 where it adds, "Chiefly used outside North America, where quote mark(s) or quotes are more usual." [[User:Mvolz|Mvolz]] ([[User talk:Mvolz|talk]]) 13:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

::: Also, re "quote mark", OER defines that as... "a closing angle bracket used to introduce quoted text." So, entirely different from the American English definition (where it is synonymous with quotation mark.) https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/156907 [[User:Mvolz|Mvolz]] ([[User talk:Mvolz|talk]]) 13:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}You attributed "quotation mark" to American English. I provided a reference to state otherwise, so the attribution is wrong. (I'm not sure what you mean by Oxford Dictionaries not "really" agreeing: I gave a reference to Lexico ("powered by OD")'s British English definition. [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/quotation-mark Collins] agrees.) I don't doubt they have lots of other names as well, including primary school-level "speech marks". I think it's probably best to omit a variant's location unless you can provide references which state it is exclusively used there. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 13:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: It's powered by Oxford English Dictionary, but I linked to the actual entry in Oxford English Dictionary, which does define it, but only in terms of another term- which it actually defines. This is what I meant by "not really." 
:::: But rather more importantly, according to Lexico - powered by OED- which you just cited above- "In British English, quotation marks are called inverted commas, and the single ones are used more frequently than the double for direct speech." Which I think rather settles the matter. https://www.lexico.com/grammar/inverted-commas-quotation-marks [[User:Mvolz|Mvolz]] ([[User talk:Mvolz|talk]]) 08:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::You are being remarkably selective in your evidence. The same page you give as a reference above also states "They are also known as quotation marks, speech marks, or quotes." without attribution to any particular English variant. We have both come up with various references which suggest the marks have several names in both British, American, and other English variants' usage. Some of those references are at odds with others, or seem to contradict others from the same publisher. To specifically assign a particular name to an English variant (as you [[WP:BOLD|boldly did]] before we started this [[WP:BRD|discussion]]) would need much more unambiguous information; so, I think, settles the matter about leaving the wording as it currently stands: {{xt|In English writing, quotation marks or inverted commas, also known informally as quotes, talking marks, speech marks, quote marks, quotemarks or speechmarks,}}... [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 10:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::(addition) As regards the template referred to in this discussion's heading, I have restored it as the page is predominantly written in British English; not because the article is concerned with a subject connected solely to that version of English, but it seems to have been the variant used when the article was first developed ([[WP:ARTCON]], [[WP:RETAIN]]). [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 10:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::(correction) Some detective work suggests {{diff|Quotation marks in English|4783199||this edit}} first introduced a word ("behavior") which belongs to a specific English variant (American); that varient should therefore be the one used throughout the article ([[WP:RETAIN]], [[WP:ARTCON]]). I have changed the template, and corrected any non-American spellings. [[User:Bazza 7|Bazza]] ([[User talk:Bazza 7|talk]]) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)