| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 129: |
Line 129: |
| | | | |
| | Can we add a section saying <tt>."</tt> or <tt>,"</tt> is always better than putting the quotation mark first, and <tt>.)</tt> or <tt>.")</tt> are similarly preferable to <tt>).</tt> and <tt>").</tt> please? We also need to remind editors that numbered hyperlinks come after periods, commas, and parentheses, not before them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 03:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC) | | Can we add a section saying <tt>."</tt> or <tt>,"</tt> is always better than putting the quotation mark first, and <tt>.)</tt> or <tt>.")</tt> are similarly preferable to <tt>).</tt> and <tt>").</tt> please? We also need to remind editors that numbered hyperlinks come after periods, commas, and parentheses, not before them. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 03:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
| − | :...Erm. For quotes, it depends. If a proper sentence(-fragment) then I'd put punctuation in front (entry and exit), with ','=>'.' or vice-versa, as required by the full container sentence, but retaining notable exclamation- and question-marks. <tt>He said, "Erm," with a hint of hesitation, "For quotes, it depends."</tt> I know this is how I was taught to deal with quoted speech (close on fifty years ago), although I know standards change, and it may not even then have been so necessary for non-speech quotations. Yet certainly if I were to mention a set of randomish words like "Red green blue" (or "Red", "Green" and "Blue", perhaps) I would unhesitatingly consider it utterly wrong to move punctuation within any such quotation section. And note that an Oxford Comma (even without the quotes) would confuse matters in that second example.
| |
| − | :As for <tt>.)</tt> (etc), I've seen somebody ''wrongly'' do this. Do not do it if you have a in-sentence parenthesis (like this). I have never seen any suggestion that you'd do that (like this.) [<= Deliberately wrong!] And, even if it works "like a quote", it ''really'' looks wrong to me. (The clear exception is when you entirely make a sentence parenthetical, like this.)
| |
| − | :Now, this is just my own experience/preference/habituation. I have no doubt there are alternative points of view, which I would welcome to be added hereafter. But, whilst supporting the ''initial'' idea to precede quotes with punctuation (yet content to let it slip when others have prior authorship and it causes no additional confusion), I rail against it as an unwavering/absolutist style for all quotes ("quotes" ''and'' 'quotes', and maybe even «quotes» and the rest?) and especially it having any bearing at all in any bracketting/bracing/parenthesi(s|z)ing situations where full and proper start/end mark nesting should be adhered to as the ''only'' useful criteria.
| |
| − | :An interesting counter-examplee, however, might even mean individualised punctuation either side of a close-paren (if the sentence somehow does not require the same mark as the aside somehow begs, whether that be exclamation, question or even… ellipsis…?!?). Just so. But I'd normally consider rewriting that, as too stream-of-consciousness-like. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.73|162.158.159.73]] 04:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::This is covered in sections [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec005.html 6.5] and [https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch06/ch06_sec009.html 6.9] of the ''Chicago Manual of Style''. The intent is to aid readability. The reasons for variation from such style guidelines are evident when they are compelling, but whether a quotation doesn't actually end with a comma is simply not a compelling reason to write typography which distracts the ordinary reader. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.213|172.70.206.213]] 09:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::(Chicago links need registration to access, so no idea whose arguments/what alternative it supports.)
| |
| − | :::There are many Style Manuals (I'd defer to H. W. Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'', if forced). But, I would say, clarity is king above all. And I think the original suggestion is incorrect in that regard.
| |
| − | :::And depends upon medium. I was taught to put a little finger between words when learning to write with nibbed-pens (and don't smudge/flick the ink!) and a thumb-width indent to each paragraph's first line. Later two spacebars between sentences (and four as indent) when typing.
| |
| − | :::But that's old-hat (and doesn't survive whitespace condensing in XMLish context, etc, anyway). Spell things correctly (or, because of where Randall lives, all Americanised!) and try not to be accidentally ambiguous! And "-1" to original suggestion. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.80|172.70.91.80]] 12:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::A Google search on, "Fowler's Modern English on quotation," returns the question, "What is the correct punctuation for quotes?," in the second paragraph of results. Clicking on it shows the answer, "Commas and periods always go inside the quotation marks in American English; dashes, colons, and semicolons almost always go outside the quotation marks; question marks and exclamation marks sometimes go inside, sometimes stay outside."[https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/] Does ''Fowler'' diverge from ''Chicago'' in any of these respects? The paywall has a free 30-day trial, and it isn't difficult to find citations to those sections elsewhere. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 21:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::(On principle, I don't do 'free trials', but that's just me and a comment on being asked to check something that has hoops to it.)
| |
| − | :::::Like I said, ''if forced'', I'd defer to Fowler of the many options, after the clear suggestion that Chicago was effectively the ''Académie Française'' of English, no matter which flavo[u]r of the lingo you're defaulting to. And [https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/british-versus-american-style.html this article is interesting], but I'm not sure I agree with its single-/double-quotes mark primacy suggestion.
| |
| − | :::::Anyway, when it's an actual speech-quoting-quote I'd probably adhere to preceding the quotation marks. But was resonding to OP's (your?) suggestion that it "is always better". And, coincidentally, just there it is not. Furthermore, Fowler does suggest that where a sentence is equally clear with and without punctuation, one should leave it out. I may not always stick to that myself, with an inordinate love of comma-bound sub-clausing, but I find it a decent principle to aspire to.
| |
| − | :::::As for "Foo (bar.)"-form sentences. No. Just no. Though "(Foo bar.)", and then always so in that case! Noting that you've not defended this part of the original idea, so I don't feel the need to continue to flog that aparently terminal equine.
| |
| − | :::::It's all just opinions, however, just to demonstrate my feelings on the subject as sympathetic to the gist of OP's first respondant. I have no idea if OP and Chicago-linker (and, in turn Chicago-trialler) are the same person or just separately of the opposing opinion. Let those who actually administer the site have the ultimate say (if they wish to have), naturally. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.201|172.69.79.201]] 23:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::::The reason we don't try to assign identities to the sources of ideas when we discuss them, is because we believe, as Oscar Wilde once said, the value of the idea is greater than the value of the person expressing the idea. Would you please answer the question about whether ''Fowler'' diverges from ''Chicago?'' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 23:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::::::I have yet to delve into the Windy City's precise text. And Fowler has said much, but how about:
| |
| − | [...] Neatness is the sole consideration; just as the ears may be regarded as not hearing organs, but 'handsome volutes of the human capital', so quotation marks may be welcomed as giving a good picturesque finish to a sentence; those who are of this way of thinking must feel that, if they allowed outside them anything short of fine handsome stops like the exclamation and question marks, they would be countenancing an anticlimax. But they are really mere conservatives, masquerading only as aesthetes; and their conservatism will soon have to yield. Argument on the subject is impossible; it is only a question whether the printer's love for the old ways that seem to him so neat, or the writer's and reader's desire to be understood and to understand fully, is to prevail."
| |
| − | :::::::And later, as part of a conclusion, the interesting:
| |
| − | [...] We recommend that the Times method should be abandoned, and the first or second of the others used according to circumstances.
| |
| − | The next question is, Whence is this income derived?—Times.
| |
| − | The next question is 'Whence is this income derived?'. (Full direct quotation. Observe the 'monstrosity' stop)
| |
| − | The next question is whence this income is derived. (Indirect quotation)
| |
| − | The next question is 'Whence this income is derived'. (Indirect quotation with quotation marks, or half-and-half quotation, like the Borrow sentence)
| |
| − | :::::::Far too much to copypasta. The concluding para just over-eggs my already eggy pudding, so above are just two of the many interesting bits that popped up in the source given at the top of my own definitive search (by exactly the same terms as given above), that demonstrate the evolution of what might be considered acceptible (and why) going into the future, ''[https://www.bartleby.com/116/406.html from 1908]''! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.11|162.158.159.11]] 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Math Formatting==
| |
| − | Math formatting seems to be broken. For example, the following (from [[2435: Geothmetic Meandian]]) doesn't compile:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <math>\left(\prod_{i=1}^n x_i\right)^\frac{1}{n} = \sqrt[n]{x_1 x_2 \cdots x_n}</math>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Perhaps a configuration error? The LaTeX markup is correct, and it works on Wikipedia and TeX processing systems like Overleaf, but not here. Simple things like <math>E=mc^2</math> seem to work, but more slightly more advanced things like uppercase greek letters (e.g., ''\Pi'') and delimiters (e.g., ''\left('' or ''\right)'') don't seem to.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Or is this by design, and math formulas really shouldn't be part of explanations? That seems a bit odd to me (especially for an xkcd explanation wiki), but I'm new here and I'm not sure.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Math formulas should be a part of the explanation. I think this is an error. I am having trouble with this too. I am correcting a formula on 2117. A simple change of superscript positioning triggers the same error for me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.141|172.69.58.141]] 19:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Clarify "removing Discussion (from main comic article) if it gets too long" ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ''What'' gets too long: Article or Discussion (or the net sum of both)? How much ''is'' too long? Is there a 'hmm maybe' buffer, given the inconsistencies in application across articles? Do you just scrap {{template|comic discussion}} (noting header-tab to the Talk: page is always there), or do you leave an explanatory surrogate link for the no-longer-embedded section (especially as others may arrive later and presume that it was missed/removed for no good reason, never mind actually disagreeing over the utility...). And do you do it unilaterally/anonymously, or is it better to posit the change (RFC it, on the relevent Talk: page, or perhaps a Community Portal-like global review page/section) ''before'' stepping in to do so without opposing voices?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I can see why it's a sensible guideline, but I'm not confident that it is being consistently applied (one way or another, or both), and it could do with concensus rather than seemingly arbitrary application at the whim of any old editor. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.235|172.70.91.235]] 10:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
| |
