UESPWiki:Archive/CP Quoting and Punctuation Format

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Quoting and Punctuation Format

(Previous discussion at UESPWiki talk:Style_Guide#Quotes)

It has been suggested that I bring up this grammatical issue here to hopefully achieve consensus on style.

Throughout UESPWiki, different styles of punctuation are being used in regards to quotation marks. Some are using the traditional standard, more popular in the US, while others are using the "logical quoting" standard, which is more popular in the UK and in technical writing (including the US). See: Wikipedia on Quotes & Punctuation for more details.

In my observation, whether through choice or ignorance of any other style, we seem to be using "logical quoting" most often around the Wiki, where quotes are treated identically to parentheses and punctuation is grouped accordingly. In other words, if you're quoting just the word "sample":

This is a "sample". (period belongs with sentence, not quote, so goes outside)

This is a "sample." (traditional style where punctuation is always inside the quotes)

but if quoting the entire sentence

"This is a sample." (whole sentence inside, so punctuation is inside)

Obviously, different people will have different opinions, and this is a very minor issue, to be sure. With so many pages, I don't see a site-wide edit being practical, regardless of which style is chosen (if any), but if we can reach a consensus, it would certainly prevent "style-wars" in the future, and hopefully a consistent style would emerge over time as people begin to adopt the one decided upon.

While my choice would be the logical quoting, since traditional quoting is more common in the US, and we use US English throughout the site, I can see where that might be the more "logical" choice. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Interesting notion. I believe there are two different uses for the quotation marks. Their literal intention (to quote) and the use of lessening the strength of certain words. For example:

The carving on the stone read "Almsivi".

The Goblin is more "real" than the Daedroth.

The first example shows the literal example. The quotation marks mark the beginning and end of a phrase taken directly from a source. It shows that it was unaltered. I think we should stick with the keeping any punctuation that was originally inside the quoted text inside. This would be the logical approach, but as it is helps maintain the the authenticity of the quoted text, this holds my preference.

In the second example the quotation marks are used to give an altered meaning to the word "real". It only serves to show that the Goblin belongs more to the mainstream fantasy creatures than the Daedroth does. While I also feel strongly about using the logical quoting for this case, I can imagine that some people don't feel like that. I just made this distinction because I think that logical quoting when using it in its literal sense is best. --Timenn < talk > 13:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, you used logical quoting in both examples (though neither really applies in the second, since there's no other punctuation besides the quotes). In traditional quoting (sometimes called typesetters' quoting), your first example would've been:

The carving on the stone read "Almsivi."

The problem with typesetters' quoting becomes obvious here: namely, the carving doesn't actually have a period in it. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

My general practice has always been to use logical quotations for the sake of clarity. I grew up in the US and this is the method I was always taught, so I don't know that this is strictly a UK thing. One thing I also do is to italicize quoted text, i.e.: The carving on the stone read "Almsivi". When using quotes in the second intention, to lessen the value of words, no italics are needed. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 19:13, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah. I changed some quotes to "traditional" a while ago only because I thought it was correct grammar. I had no idea that there was another method that could be deemed "correct". (See, there was a logical quote!) I now think that logical quotes are a good idea to make things on this site look more clear.—Sam324 13:31, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It seems we have something of a consensus here - so far no votes for traditional style quotes, so anybody see any reason not to make logical quotes the standard site policy? One thing I did notice is that on Wikipedia's page, linked above, they state that "scientific and technical publications, even in the U.S., almost universally use logical quotation (punctuation outside unless part of the source material), due to its precision." Since this is an encyclopedic website, I think we could say we qualify as a "technical publication". (I just demonstrated both types of logical quotes, hehe.) Personally, I think that if "traditional" quotes, as stated in the article, are just a holdover from the days when they had to do that to keep from breaking the parts on old-style typesetting machines, there's really no reason to continue doing so when the text is all purely digital· (Oh, crud, I think I broke my period key···.··..·.... err...) Not sure where we'd put this policy - we have a Spelling policy page, I suppose we could make a UESPWiki:Grammar and/or UESPWiki:Punctuation page to go with it. Or maybe UESPWiki:Grammar and Punctuation, because I don't know that there are enough things that'd need to be discussed in that respect to warrant 2 separate pages. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 10:04, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, this whole discussion originally came up in the context of the UESPWiki:Style_Guide page (specifically UESPWiki_talk:Style_Guide#Quotes), where there were a couple of traditionalists, before it was suggested that the discussion would make more sense here to poll a wider audience. So the Style Guide might be the appropriate place to put this. That said, a Grammar and/or Punctuation page might not be a bad idea too. I'm sure we'd find other things to put there over time besides this. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 12:13, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Another vote here for "logical quotes". As to where to put it, how about a UESPWiki:Grammar and Punctuation that has a link and sentence on the UESPWiki:Style_Guide? Besides the above, this page could hold site conventions on "gold, not Gold", "southwest, not South West" and the like. Ok, I just made that direction rule up, stop derail. XD --Benould^•T•C 13:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm for logical quotes. I was trained in school to use the traditional standard, but I think the logical standard is much more intuitive. I've been sorta using it without even knowing it existed out of disgust for the traditional standard.--Ratwar 14:59, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd already stated a preference for logical quotes on the original discussion but I should do so again here. I should clarify though and say that I'm actually supporting logical quotes unless the games does something different: the quotations used in the games should always be the standard where applicable. After all, we already reproduce spelling errors faithfully; we should do the same for grammar errors too. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:04, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, of course. Any errors made by the games themselves (or any other official material from Bethesda) should remain uncorrected. That's already pretty well-established site policy. Also, while in the case of certain misspellings, we may occasionally make use of the  [sic] template to show that the error originates in the game, not the site, I don't think we need to do so in the case of punctuation that differs from the site standard (or indeed even punctuation that is clearly wrong by any standard) - it's just not important enough to draw attention to in that way. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 01:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm in favour of creating a guideline stating that logical quotes are preferred, for the various reasons already mentioned. However, I think it should just be a guideline, and that it should emphasize that the primary purpose for the guideline is to prevent edit wars (either short-term or, more likely, long-term ones where editor A revamps a set of pages, then a month later editor B revamps again, then a couple months later editor C, etc.). I don't think that this guideline should compel editors to change their punctuation habits: editors who are more comfortable with traditional style quotes should still be free to add information using that punctuation style. And I don't think the guideline should initiate a round of going through the site and purging the site of "wrong" format quotes. It's too minor of an issue to necessitate any real action, and implementation has no real impact on the site or its readers. The main recommendation of the guideline, as I see it, would be that logical-style quotes should not be replaced by traditional quotes.

As for where to add it, I'd vote for just adding it to the Style Guide for now. If eventually we end up with a collection of similar guidelines, then at that time a new page may be necessary. But at the moment it seems like a new page would be somewhat barren, or else would prompt a round of new guidelines just for the sake of filling an empty page. --Nephele^Talk 20:37, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

It's been more than a week and there haven't been any dissenting opinions or further feedback. So I've gone ahead and added a blurb to the style guide providing a new guideline on quotation style preferences. Does that work for everyone? If everyone agrees that the new statement is a fair summary of the discussion, then I think the issue has been resolved. --Nephele^Talk 00:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)