User:Jguk/policy proposal/table of origins
This is a table of origins for the policy proposal.
| New proposal | Original policy | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 1. With quotation marks, though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations – they are easier to read on the screen – and use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations". | B. With quotation marks, though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations – they are easier to read on the screen – and use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations". | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 2. Note: if a word or phrase appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the Wikipedia:Searching facility considers the single quotes to be part of the word and will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. (When trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace.) Avoiding this complication is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which the difficulty does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations. | C. Note: if a word or phrase appears in an article with single quotes, such as 'abcd', the Wikipedia:Searching facility considers the single quotes to be part of the word and will find that word or phrase only if the search string is also within single quotes. (When trying this out with the example mentioned, remember that this article is in the Wikipedia namespace.) Avoiding this complication is an additional reason to use double quotes, for which the difficulty does not arise. It may even be a reason to use double quotes for quotations within quotations. | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 3. Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon. In a quotation of multiple paragraphs not using indented style, double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph, but only at the end of the last paragraph. | F. Longer quotations may be better rendered in an indented style by starting the first line with a colon. In a quotation of multiple paragraphs not using indented style, double quotation marks belong at the beginning of each paragraph, but only at the end of the last paragraph. | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 4. Since quotations are already marked by quotation marks or indentations, they need not be put into italics. | G. Since quotations are already marked by quotation marks or indentations, they need not be put into italics. | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 5. For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes ( ' " ) not curved (smart) ones, grave accents or backticks ( ‘ ’ “ ” ` ). | H. For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes ( ' " ) not curved (smart) ones, grave accents or backticks ( ‘ ’ “ ” ` ). | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 6. If you are pasting text from Microsoft Word, remember to turn off the smart quotes feature by unmarking this feature in AutoEdit and "AutoEdit during typing"! Many other modern word processors have a smart quotes setting—please read the appropriate documentation for your editor. | I. If you are pasting text from Microsoft Word, remember to turn off the smart quotes feature by unmarking this feature in AutoEdit and "AutoEdit during typing"! Many other modern word processors have a smart quotes setting—please read the appropriate documentation for your editor. | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 7. Characters identical in appearance to left single quotation mark or right single quotation mark are used as letters in some Latin-letter transliteration systems and in some languages, for example to display the ‘okina character in Hawaiian. The characters may also be used in discussions about the quotation marks themselves. If using a left or right quotation mark for such a purpose, to assure proper display on all browsers, do not type or paste such a quotation mark directly into the Wikipedia editor. Instead, use the HTML entities ‘ or ’ or the correponding numeric forms: ‘ and ’ or ‘ and ’. If necessary to represent such characters as letters in article titles, the normal straight apostrophe ( ' ) should usually be used in place of the right quotation mark and the grave accent ( ` ) in place of the left quotation mark. | J. Characters identical in appearance to left single quotation mark or right single quotation mark are used as letters in some Latin-letter transliteration systems and in some languages, for example to display the ‘okina character in Hawaiian. The characters may also be used in discussions about the quotation marks themselves. If using a left or right quotation mark for such a purpose, to assure proper display on all browsers, do not type or paste such a quotation mark directly into the Wikipedia editor. Instead, use the HTML entities ‘ or ’ or the correponding numeric forms: ‘ and ’ or ‘ and ’. If necessary to represent such characters as letters in article titles, the normal straight apostrophe ( ' ) should usually be used in place of the right quotation mark and the grave accent ( ` ) in place of the left quotation mark. | This part of the policy is unconnected with English usage and is best kept separate from the guidance on English usage. |
| 8. Articles should be written in a standard form of English. Examples of this include American English, British English, Canadian English, Indian English and New Zealand English. Whichever form of standard English is chosen, the article should use that consistently. | N. Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people may have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. However, there is a certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia: P. Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another on the same page. |
Current policy is "For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English", but this is accompanied by a lot of waffle. Current policy also provides, in the second bullet point that "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader". The revised wording restates this policy directly. |
| 9. Where an article is about a topic that is related to a particular part of the English-speaking world, use a standard form of English that is used there. | Q. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. For example: article on the American Civil War: U.S. usage and spelling; article on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: U.K. usage and spelling; article on Ayers Rock: Australian usage and spelling; article on the European Union: U.K. usage and spelling; article on the city of Montréal: Canadian usage and spelling | Current policy is "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country". The proposal expands this so that the standard form of English used in that English-speaking country should be used. The proposal means that the grammar, punctuation and word-choice made for such an article should conform to a standard form of English used in that English-speaking country. Many Wikipedians think this is already the policy! |
| 10. Do not change the form of standard English that an article is written in to another form of standard English without good reason. | Y. If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. N. Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people may have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. However, there is a certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia: |
This is an exhortation not to change the standard form of English of an article "without good reason". The phrase "without good reason" is deliberately vague so that it can be decided by Wikipedians on an article by article basis if necessary. This proposal would be a defence against over-zealous promoters of some forms of standard English - they would have to defend on the talk pages what good reason they had for the change. A "good reason" would include changing an article to comply with paragraph 2. |
| 11. Try to pick words that will be understood internationally. That does not mean "avoid all Americanisms or Britishisms or whatever". But be sensible. People who use "biscuit" rather than "cookie" are likely to know what the American word "cookie" means. But non-Americans may not know what "7th grade" is, in the same way as Americans may not know what the "fifth form" is. | Z.`If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning" or "alternative meaning", because not all English speakers regard "alternate" and "alternative" as meaning the same. The American Heritage Dictionary "Usage Note" at alternative says: "Alternative should not be confused with alternate." Alternative commonly suggests "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker. Some traditional usage experts consider alternative to be appropriate only when there are exactly two alternatives. | This is an exhortation not to go overboard and use words, phrases, etc. that may not be understood internationally. Such words, phrases, etc. should either be replaced by other words, phrases, etc. that are likely to be understood internationally, or otherwise should be explained. |
| 12. Where you need to use a word that won't be generally understood, explain it. For instance, an article on "Eton College" will refer to it being a "public school". It also explains that in the UK this means "an independent, fee-paying secondary school". If a Wikipedian from another part of the world says they do not understand a term, take it at face value and either change that term or explain it. | Z.`If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning" or "alternative meaning", because not all English speakers regard "alternate" and "alternative" as meaning the same. The American Heritage Dictionary "Usage Note" at alternative says: "Alternative should not be confused with alternate." Alternative commonly suggests "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker. Some traditional usage experts consider alternative to be appropriate only when there are exactly two alternatives. | This is an exhortation not to go overboard and use words, phrases, etc. that may not be understood internationally. Such words, phrases, etc. should either be replaced by other words, phrases, etc. that are likely to be understood internationally, or otherwise should be explained. 5 ends with an exhortation to believe other Wikipedians who say they do not understand a term - it's a message for editors to not be too defensive about their preferred styles and adapt them when necessary. |
| 13. Proper names should retain their original spellings. For example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force. | O. Proper names should retain their original spellings. For example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force. | This is a restatement of existing policy. By way of comparison, note that The Times of London has a policy to change the original spellings to comply with their style guide. |
| 14. If different standard forms of English refer to a topic by different names, or use different spellings for words used in the article title, make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Aeroplane and Airplane, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses. | S. If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Aeroplane and Airplane, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses. | This is a restatement of existing policy. |
| 15. Try to avoid words, phrases, punctuation styles, grammar or syntax that may be regarded as so incorrect by users of another standard form of English as to be confusing. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning" or "alternative meaning", because not all English speakers regard "alternate" and "alternative" as meaning the same. Alternative commonly suggests "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker. Some traditional usage experts consider alternative to be appropriate only when there are exactly two alternatives. | Z. If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect. For example, "other meaning" should be used instead of "alternate meaning" or "alternative meaning", because not all English speakers regard "alternate" and "alternative" as meaning the same. The American Heritage Dictionary "Usage Note" at alternative says: "Alternative should not be confused with alternate." Alternative commonly suggests "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-mainstream" to an American-English speaker. Some traditional usage experts consider alternative to be appropriate only when there are exactly two alternatives. | This is largely a restatement of existing policy. However it extends the existing policy so that it relates to all aspects of a standard form of English, not just words or phrases. |
| 16. Consult Wikipedia articles such as English plural and American and British English differences. | V. Consult Wikipedia articles such as English plural and American and British English differences. | This is a restatement of a couple of links. |
| 17. Insert an additional comma before the final "and" (or "or") if needed for clarification: sugar, beef and veal, and milk products. See Oxford comma. | K. As stated by Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, and other authoritative sources, when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more elements, a comma is used before the conjunction: "The wires were brown, blue, and green." The reason for the final serial comma is to prevent the last two elements from being confused as a unit. Consider its utility in this sentence: "The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and Pope John-Paul II." See serial comma for further discussion. | This wording comes directly from the EU style guide. The new policy has no exceptions to the rule that a standard form of English is used consistently throughout an article. Therefore the only requirement is intelligibility. This proposal retains the intelligibility requirement of current policy, but goes no further than that. |
| 18. There are no guidelines on whether to use one or two spaces after the end of a sentence. This is not of particular important as the difference only shows up in the edit box. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spaces after the end of a sentence) for a discussion on this. | L. There are no guidelines on whether to use one or two spaces after the end of a sentence but it is not important as the difference only shows up in the edit box. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style archive (spaces after the end of a sentence) for a discussion on this. | Restatement of existing guidance |
| 19. In British English, when quoting, punctuation marks are included within quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. For example, "Stop!" has the punctuation inside the quotation marks, because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. However, when using "scare quotes", the comma goes outside. | D. When punctuating quoted passages, include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) For example, "Stop!" has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. However, when using "scare quotes", the comma goes outside. | The proposal is to require a standard form of English to be used in an article with no exceptions. It remains useful to highlight some differences in English usage on the policy page to inform those who are unfamiliar with the punctuation rules of other standard forms of English. |
20. Other examples:
Proper American English puts the punctuation marks inside the quotation marks. For example:
|
E. Other examples: Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The full stop (period) is not part of the quotation.); Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.); Arthur said that the situation "was the most deplorable he had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.) | The proposal is to require a standard form of English to be used in an article with no exceptions. It remains useful to highlight some differences in English usage on the policy page to inform those who are unfamiliar with the punctuation rules of other standard forms of English. |
| 21. Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with Achilles' heel. | W. Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with Achilles' heel. | Restatement of existing policy. |
| 22. Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like n.b. or viz. should be avoided and English terms such as such as, for example, or note used instead. ie and eg (either with or without stops after the letters) are commonly enough understood to be used. | X. Scholarly abbreviations of Latin terms like i.e., e.g., or n.b. should be avoided and English terms such as such as, for example, or note used instead. | Is being retained as part of general usage guidance. There is a proposed alteration to get rid of the nonsense idea that "eg" and "ie" are "scholarly", though as this is not part of the purpose of this proposal, it could be separate proposed. |