Talk:Sentence spacing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Original Research?

Are the four categories under "general preferences" referenced in a secondary source, or is that WP:OR?

I'm fine if that is an accurate description of preferences from a referenced source. However, if that is just a collection put together by one of the authors here, then perhaps it missed people that prefer three spaces, or 1.2 spaces, or any other conventions in other countries.

Regardless, I deleted two references for the first "category." One referenced an obselete and irrelevant manual. The other referenced an opinion on a blog. If the blog was written by an "expert" in this field, feel free to revert. If not, it's not considered WP:RS. Airborne84 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If the four categories within "general preferences" came from a reliable source, please add the citation. Because it contains a number of references within, I'll give it some time before going with WP:BRD and deleting the section. I have no issue with leaving it, but without a reference, it's WP:OR. Airborne84 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Readability?

It's fairly ironic that the sentence under the "Readability" paragraph header is unreadable.

What exactly does this section say? It might be useful if it was developed since this reference seems to contain the only study done on the readability of text using spacing as a variable. Airborne84 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. I could not find anything in the book relevant to this article. If I missed something, let me know. However, what I think the text referred to are various "spacing conventions" in the book that were unrelated to the title of this article - which is unfortunate. However, it doesn't belong here. Airborne84 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Related Spacing Rules

I believe this section should go. I won't delete it immediately since I just adjusted the article lede to reflect countries that use the modern Latin alphabet. However, I don't see the need to expand the topic of this article outside of Latin-based countries. It doesn't significantly add to the usefulness or relevance of the article. Further, I cannot see this section expanding much further than its current state. This is because of the difficulty in getting references in the first place, but also because of their arguable lack of relevance to the topic of the article. If there are no objections in the next week, I'll delete that section. Airborne84 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminology: spacebands & wedges

I think it is preferable to say "Spaces were added to the text using spacebands, wedge-like devices used for justifying the text, but which caused problems if used in multiples." This gives a good link to spacebands, since there isn't one for wedges. Referring to spacebands as wedges is too much of a simplification which I think "wedge-like devices" overcomes. In "fully justified", "fully" is unnecessary, not even partially justified.

(But this may not even be necessary. It's way to long: 30 page downs compared with 3 for Robertson screwdriver.) Modal Jig (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - it sounds reasonable. Feel free to make the change as I don't own this article. If you're just passing through, I'll get to it myself when I get time in about a week.

And it is long. But there are probably not dozens of websites set up to host hotly contested debates about the Robertson screwdriver. It'll probably have to get split up eventually, but it's not at 100kb yet, so there's rationale to keep as is for now. There's lots more coming, so it should become evident in the next month or two when it needs to be split. Airborne84 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the text, and also removed the reference to justification, since spacebands are also used in unjustified text. Modal Jig (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Desktop Publishing

I didn't write this section, but the latter portion of this section seems to offer a rebuttal of the readability of the single-space convention between sentences by an author that doesn't frame his "spacing issues" in the context of inter-sentence spacing. In that light, this material doesn't belong in this article. It's a more general typography topic. I'll leave it here for now in case someone saw something I didn't. Since I may add a section with literature and studies that tangentially impact on this topic, it may still be of use. Airborne84 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to split

This article will very likely exceed 100kb, the normal standard for splitting, for short periods. However, I'm planning to consolidate much of the stilted and haphazard work in the second half of the article, which will greatly reduce the size. I'm just working on the first half...first. It will take some time. Airborne84 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposal for new title

The present title is not only awkward, long-winded, and very unlikely to be searched for – it also describes only one way of spacing sentences (the "wrong" way). The result is an article that looks more like an attempt to persuade than an encyclopaedic article discussing the different ways in which sentences have been and are (and should be) spaced. It would be better to rename it Sentence spacing. This would be a much better title for an article describing both single- and double-spacing conventions, and it would more accurately reflect the balance of the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I have been thinking about this a bit recently. The title has to change. I have a few ideas, generally in order of preference:

Inter-sentence spacing. "Sentence spacing" is simpler but could refer to the spacing within a sentence as well, both between words as well as between characters. In some niche study areas, it could even be between "phrase segments" within sentences.

Spacing after a sentence. Could be used. I'd still rank this below "Inter-sentence spacing," but above the items below since it would be more likely to be searched for by the average user.

Terminal punctuation spacing. Maybe more concise, but not sure how many "average" folks will know the term "terminal punctuation." Theoretically, it could refer to spacing before terminal punctuation as well. For grammarians, there isn't really much discussion about that—even in international countries that use English. For typographers, it can mean something, since different kerning variations are possible among various characters, and punctuation could generate a different kerning value before terminal punct. in a specific font—theoretically.

Spacing after terminal punctuation. This is more comprehensive, but is probably more unwieldy than the current title.

Sentence period spacing. I don't like this one much. It's the name of of a group that is currently conducting studies on this issue. I think the idea they were trying to convey (although they didn't say why they chose this name) is a sequential theme: (1) Sentence, (2) Period, (3) Spacing. Of course, this ignores question and exclamation marks. I suppose it could be "Sentence punctuation spacing" but I'm not a big fan of this one since it doesn't lend itself well to a "search" by the average English speaker. Maybe there's a better variant.

The first two are probably the best choices. Even though "Inter-sentence spacing" is more accurate, the "inter" part might make a search tougher though. I think that as long as the words "spacing" and "sentence" are in the title, it should be OK, but I'm not that familiar with Internet seach protocols, so I don't know if the "Inter-" would throw something off. There are a lot of Websites that currently link to the title of this article, so keeping the words "spacing" and "sentences" at least is probably important.

I'm sure I'm missing other ideas—maybe even the best option.

I think the first or second ones are probably the best choices without seeing other better ideas. I'd like to hear your opinion on it. I'm making a big push this week to include the rest of my reseach into this article, so I can return to my projects intended for "paper" publication. I'm planning on contributing the rest of my reseach in terms of the spacing between sentences in general, not specifically toward the "double spacing idea." So, I'm fine making a change immediately. Nice to have a second, common sense check though. Let me know what you think.

Also, the mess of information in the second half of the article has to be synthesized as well. I have a very few contributions in those areas, so if you have ideas in that area, feel free to step in. Airborne84 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct title would be sentence spacing. The spacing between letters within a word is called letter spacing, the spacing between words is called word spacing, the spacing between sentences is called sentence spacing, the spacing between lines is called line spacing... (and you can guess what the spacing between paragraphs is called). Simple – and this is all standard industry terminology, not just my opinion! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, if it's that simple, I'm all for it. Let me do a little research on that. Just want to make sure there isn't any other ambiguity that could exist. I'll also check the "old" talk posts since there was some discussion on this before. Again, I'm fine in principle with that title. I just want to make sure that the change made is final because it's truly the best option. There are a lot of links that have to get updated to change the title... Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed some of the books on typography I have on hand. They don't all use the term "sentence spacing," but that's not a big issue. The key issue would be if there was any ambiguity with that wording. I don't see an issue, so I'm a big fan of the title "Sentence spacing." Another benefit is that there is no need for any "double spacing" disambiguation now (as in double spacing of lines), if there was before. Feel free to make the change immediately. There's probably a way to identify what articles link to this one. If not, off the top of my head, I can think of WP:MoS and Full Stop. I'm sure there are others within Wikipedia. Some redirects may need to be adjusted and created too. If the terms noted above aren't listed in redirects, they probably all merit creation (except maybe the last one, "Sentence Period Spacing"). If you don't want to make the change to the title, I'll do it later this week. Thanks for the input! Airborne84 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Move accomplished. Some editing required to make the article fit the new title better. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! I can take it from here if you're just passing through. Or, let me know if you want to dig in and I'll paste my tentative outline and thoughts here. I'll be doing a complete overhaul in the next 36 hours, so you can work on anything you'd like here or just come back in a day or two and (hopefully) see a much better article and give it a common sense check. I'm signing off for a few hours though. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Best for me (busy IRL) is to come back after you're done and look over it. I will leave it alone for a few days. Overhaul away! (But is there any way you can make it all a bit shorter? The article is off-puttingly long, and in places it is rather wordy. I'm sure there is scope for tightening and shortening.) I'll not do anything for 72 hours. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We're both thinking the same way. My plan is to synthesize by estimation before plugging in the remaining sections in my tent. outline (studies, readability/legibility on either side, controversy/public opinion, photos, etc. and then crunch the second half as much as possible while retaining relevant data. Once that plays out, I'll see what it looks like and then keep crunching until it's a size and shape that might work for an FA here. Thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Page overhaul

I'm probably just talking to myself again. But oh well.

However, I made a major overhaul. If you contributed material that was deleted (mostly only unsourced material was deleted) or was synthesized, my apologies. It was just getting to look almost like a coatrack (with my contributions as well, in some cases). Take a look at an example of a Featured Article to see why I did what I did.

If you feel you need to re-add material, please try to not just slap a new section header and a new section in. Try to make it fit in within the text, as opposed to a separate section. However, the article is at max capacity now, so it still needs to be shaved.

It might be better to split the "Style guide" section off, but not sure if it will be notable by itself. If that's not going to work, I'll drill down the first sections and shave off the lower priority stuff. I need to reduce the size of each of the earlier sections after the lede a bit anyway.

The sentence spacing controversy needs a complete overhaul too. I have the material to do it. A few photos coming too. I just ran out of time today. It'll be back to a trickle for a while. Maybe it's at an A-class article now though.

Finally, I don't WP:OWN this article. But please be careful about making wording changes that could feasibly diverge from the sources I used. I didn't play semantic games to push a POV, I just picked my wording in some cases to encompass the widest variety of sources possible. Changing wording might reduce the number of possible sources from five to two, for example, but it would still require me to go in and recheck the sources and remove the ones that are no longer applicable. If there is wording that seems POV and it might fall into the above category, let me know, or just change it carefully. On the other hand, I understand that some wording seems strong, but it was probably the exact or paraphraed wording used by the sources. Airborne84 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Split

Planning to split "History of sentence spacing." I believe it meets WP:N criteria. Although the article length is also due to the endnotes and reference list, It's still too long for easy reading. Although splitting the list of style guides might also make sense, I'm not sure the new article would meet the criteria discussed in WP:N. Airborne84 (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Style Guides - Split: Discuss

At least one other editor has mentioned that this article is too long. It's a reasonable observation. I believe that the "style guide" section would be better split into a separate article—with its contents summarized here in a paragraph or two. Benefits:

1. Reduces the amount of "United States" study guide material in this article relative to international style guides—thus contributing to this article meeting WP:WORLDVIEW, by not providing undue weight to the United States.

2. Allows the expansion of material within the style guides in a new article.

3. Reduces the size and length of this article, making it easier to "digest."

However, is this topic notable enough under WP:N to split? If so, what should it be called? List of style guides: Sentence spacing(?) The name would also drive whether it meets the notability criteria under WP:N. Airborne84 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Endnote consistency

No problem with the Chicago endnote expansion. I had considered it myself except that I didn't want to put too much focus on U.S. style guides. Happy to keep it. I just combined the three notes into one—separated by semicolons—to keep it consistent with the rest of the endnotes. I had to do that earlier because in some cases I had 5+ "blue" endnote markers to mark a single inline citation. One actually had nine, I think. I decided to drop all down to a single endnote per citation, that listed multiple references within—if appropriate. Airborne84 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Education

[Repasted from above] absolutely must not answer the question..... I disagree. The Wikipedia's purpose is to document both the historical data and provide accurate present day information. 1) First, it should be made clear that the double-space is primarily an issue in the US only. The controversy does not exists in other parts of the world. It doesn't exist (at least during past 30 years) in education in other English speaking countries like UK or Australia. To my knowledge, there has never been a Government education program in countries outside of US that would have taught "double spacing" grammar rules; the isolated cases e.g. in the UK have been mostly in the past affected by separate typewriter classes — a skill, which was not part of the curriculum per se. I believe not even in Canada have had that in curriculum, but please correct if I'm mistaken. 2) Because this is mostly a US centered topic, there is nothing wrong in presenting accurate present day information for the US readers visiting the page. If I understand correct, in the US there is no single common curriculum of writing taught in the elementary schools that would be imposed by the government. This seems to be a major difference from the rest of the world where Government policies are carried out in every school. Therefore, in the US, an individual teacher may have adopted a style, one way or other--possibly influenced by tradition, to teach single or double space rules. Which is the the source of current confusion of the "tradition", and its value in present times. However, there are norms in the present day public communication. These can be derived from three sources: the Government guidelines, the Academic publishing guidelines and from the publishing industry. E.g. did you know that Supreme Court rulings, or Federal legislation, or briefs filed by the US Solicitor General follow the Style Manual by US Government Printing Office (The GPO Style) where "single space" is the norm. This is usually a shock to law firms of which many still believe that "two space" is more appropriate in legal matters. While US government have not had a common curriculum —in some sense — the GPO Manual would have been the closest what the education sector could have followedx. However, there are norms in the higher education — in he academic — sector and in the commercial publishing industry. These define styles what are acceptable; and the end product artifacts are the printed history, if you will. The service the Wikipedia is doing is to collect and document each sectors' sources. What have the authoritative sources said about the spacing in the past and what do they say about it now in the 21th century? Please go ahead and collect what are the guidelines for publishing industry: the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), the Associated Press Style Guide (AP Style) etc; the major guidelines for the academic sector: Modern Language Association (MLA), Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA Style), AMA Manual of Style--A Guide for Authors and Editors (American Medical Association, AMA Style); english guidelines outside of US: The Oxford Style Manual aka The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (UK), Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (AGPS Style, Australian Government). Let's also include the most influential and authoritative english books: The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst ("the bible"), The Complete Manual of Typography by James Felici ("bible class"), The Blue Book Guide to Grammar & Punctuation by Jane Strauss (also in the "bible class"), The Copyeditor's Handbook--A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications by Amy Einsohn (possibly redundant because mostly based on CMS). --User:jaalto 2010-04-26 18:49

I copied this here because that thread above was for a version of the article that was entirely different than the current version. It's been completely revised—to include a name change. A few comments:

• I don't know about education systems across the board. I'd guess that in the UK, they taught double spacing in typing class. I know it was done in Canada because I asked some Canadians and they confirmed. Can't put OR in the article based on that though. It may be a US centered topic, but I didn't define it that way because "French spacing" and "English spacing" (primarily referring to the current UK) are important terms regarding this topic. Besides, many of the works (esp. typography) cover many languages and alphabets, so are not restricted to English or the United States, regardless of where they were published.
• Some of what you mention about previous editions of key style guides would be useful - but more so in the History of sentence spacing and the Sentence spacing: Language and style guides articles. This article is intended to give an overview of the contemporary picture, while providing some historical context. So, I used the most current versions of most works, unless they contributed to the historical context (or analysis). And many of the works mentioned above were included in the article (see Bibliography). What they say is spelled out more in Sentence spacing: Language and style guides. I split that article out to reduce the US focus on this article IAW WP:WORLDVIEW. Airborne84 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

REFs

Recent edits have removed all references to site http://spacewaste.wordpress.com/ based on it being "blog".I don't see the justification as other book authors like James Felici also keep blogs. The people behind the spacewaste are John Wills Lloyd and Dan Hallahan -- Both notable academic figures; with Lloyd having a Ph.D degree and having published hundread-plus items through 1975-2008 (Homepage http://people.virginia.edu/~jwl3v/ and see also http://ldblog.com/about-ldblog/). The issues they raise in the spacewaste are valid academic questions about the APA 6th edition, because the page analyses the APAs motivations to see if there is backing for the "two space" recommendation introduced in recent revision. This is valid critical argument and I don't see why the page shouldn't be referenced in Wikipedia. An example quote that was removed from the references: During times when many disciplines that recommend the APA’s Publication Manual [6th ed., 2009] are advocating evidence-based decisions, it’s noteworthy, we think, that these discussions of the rationale for using two spaces at the end of sentences (and after colons) do not appear to be based on scientific examination of the hypothesis that two spaces makes manuscripts more readable. We have to admit that we haven’t employed the most rigorous search methods in seeking evidence, but we’ve searched for studies comparing readability when one or two spaces follow sentence-ending punctuation, and we simply haven’t found any studies of the hypothesis. The quote looks valid one and candidate for next to discussion about the APA. Btw, the recent APA 6th edition is very exceptional remembering that the previous editions recommended one space. --jaalto 2010-04-27

My apologies, they don't make it at all apparent that they're behind the blog; only with some digging was I able to confirm that they are (which they only do via a comment on another blog; the only corroboration is that the APA bloggers seem to believe it's indeed them). --Cybercobra (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the important things is verifiability. Thanks --jaalto 2010-04-27

Just for the record for other readers, the identity of these men can be verified at blog.apastyle.org where “JohnWillsLloyd said... Ms. Wiederkehr, thanks for raising the matter of dot-matrix printers. I was thinking about them earlier today and mentioned them in a SpaceWaste [...] I hope to return to the topic later in our blog. [...] Couldn't agree more with Lester--the new manual is enjoyable, much more so than the 5th. The streamlining really adds to its utility. It's just too bad the authors changed back to two spaces. As the discussion on SpaceWaste indicates, the change appears arbitrary: http://spacewaste.wordpress.com/ And from talking with colleagues, I think it's a good guess that many will do what Amy's going to do--not change.” See also comment in in other place: “We write to inform you that we have just activated the following website: http://spacewaste.wordpress.com/ As you’ll see, the focus is on the APA Manual (6th ed.) and its reference to the use of two spaces at the end of sentences. We hope you take this action in the spirit in which it’s intended—to promote healthy discussion of the pros and cons of what we think is a troublesome change from the previous edition of the Manual. You’ll see our questions and concerns emerge over the next few days. We invite you to join in the dialogue. --Dan Hallahan, John Lloyd”. Out of interest the originating APA blogger at blog.apastyle.org is in high position: she is Sarah Wiederkehr, Editorial Supervisor at American Psychological Association at Washington D.C. Metro Area. She also keeps blog at typepad.com --jaalto 2010-04-27

Peer review complete

Thanks for adding some critical eyes to the article. It's greatly appreciated. You may be doing this already, but Ruhrfish conducted a peer review and left some great comments. I was glad to see this since her/his user page [1] indicates she/he has some experience in this area. Please feel free to address these comments listed at: [2] although I will get to them eventually.

As far as the consistency in quotes, I had used a "full cite" for the first instance of each source in the endnotes. After Ruhrfish's comment on that, I decided that the existence of a Bibliography is probably enough, since the "short cites" are linked to the Bibliography. It might be better to just make them all short cites. Thoughts? Airborne84 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

French spacing in lede

When I first started working on this article (January, I think), the lede (and article) had a massive amount of confusing and contradictory information regarding French spacing. I removed the confusing part from the lede and moved the data about it to the latter parts of the article (digital age now, I think). That's not to say it couldn't reasonably be added back to the lede. I'd suggest it needs to be done carefully though:

• 1. Is it necessary for the lede? Maybe. The lead should have the following:

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

If the French spacing ambiguity doesn't add to the lede, and isn't one of the most important points, maybe it should be left out to be addressed later.

• 2. Is it returing the lede to "wordy prose"? The article just went through a peer review and Ruhrfish and one other overhauled the lede and first few sections to reduce the wordiness. I just want to be careful about reintroducing wordiness before we get this to an FAC again.

The French spacing link is in the lede now to point readers to that section. I don't know if we need to discuss the history of French spacing and the confusion regarding it in the lede here. If the other editors want to reintroduce it, let's just discuss the best way to do so so the FAC review doesn't end up with people bringing up the same points about wordiness. Airborne84 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The French spacing link is in the lede now to point readers to that section. Actually, it doesn't; the link is broken because there is no such section with the title it uses presently. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone must have fixed it. It refers to that section in History of sentence spacing now. Airborne84 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Praise the anonymous WikiGnomes! The talk pages have eyes! --Cybercobra (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of adequate explanation of the french spacing term would be appropriate. This is because that term is loaded, it means different things to different people and the article needs to define what is its primary meaning here (or what Wikipedia considers its primary meaning). It appears that there is great confusion judging from the many discussion in the Internet. --jaalto 2010-04-28

That's fair enough. My concern is only that we don't try to develop it too much in the lede so that we reintroduce the "overwriting" charge that was leveled at this article during its last FAC go-round (hopefully we can get it to a viable FAC soon). I think one sentence in the lede that covers it might sufficient? This may also need to be explained better within the body of this article or in the History of sentence spacing article. I think there was once a French spacing article, but it was combined into this one. It's also permissible for us to put a French spacing link in for an article that hasn't been created (we'd have to kill the French spacing redirect page to this one). It would show up as a "red" link in most people's browsers. I wouldn't want to do that in the lede of this article, but it might get a reader interested in writing the article if it was in the text of one of these related articles. Anyway, I'll think about how to describe French spacing in the lede here later today. If you'd like to take a crack at it, feel free. I'm just trying to balance completeness on this topic with the FAC comments (see top of discussion page for link). The biggest thing I got from that and from Ruhrfish's peer review was to be brutal about removing anything that is on the periphery and not directly related—to pare down the prose in this article. Airborne84 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Text comparison images - lede

It seems we need a different text image/examples in the lede. That's fine. However, the one I posted took a bit of time to find and make, so rather than me just going back to the drawing board, please let me know what would make a useful lede (and any other) image. I'll be happy to make it.

Do you mean that the sentence spacing examples weren't good choices? For example, I could have compared double-spaced typewritten type with single spaced type, and then chosen an older "em-quadded" example for the history. Or do you mean that the examples should be full pages? Or something else?

I could find an example of U.S. government-printed text (single sentence spaced) and compare it to a left-justified typewritten page from the same era (probably early 1900's) to show the difference. I hate to use just English/U.S. text, but the U.S. govt. documents are easiest for me to find IRT copyright laws. I have a public domain German-language em-quadded text example that could be used for the history.

Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the left side was fine, but the em-quad spacing on the right side was too similar. I think typewriter single-spacing would have been better. Also, the background color difference detracted from it. I commend you on the attempt though, as finding good examples is obviously not easy. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, what I'll do is use the (left side) 1949 double-spaced typewritten example, and pull a single-spaced U.S. government typeset text example (from the GPO) for the right. That will compare the sentence spacing between 20th century typewritten and "professionally printed" text. Also, using two documents from the same year/era might be more meaningful. I wasn't sure that using a single-spaced example was useful since the article itself is single-spaced. But having an example from print will be a plus, now that I've considered it a bit more (for a few reasons). Point taken about the color difference. I thought it was an interesting example because it also showed the antiquated custom of using spaces before colons and semi-colons as well.

I think I'll use the em-quadded German-text example that I have in the History section as a stand-alone. I think going with German text instead of the "right side" example I posted before will help mitigate the WP:Worldview objections received in the first FAC. Airborne84 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for lede image

If I might make a suggestion, how about using this image (right) I created? One issue I have with the current image (government text) is that they are not the same content; thus it becomes similar with comparing apples to oranges since one cannot readily see the difference between single and double sentence-spacings. Furthermore, JPG files has issues with re-sizings (thus text images are not recommended to be in JPG (ref:Wikipedia:Image use policy). Jappalang (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to make the image. I'm hesitant for a couple of reasons to make the switch. (1) Both of the examples in the new image use a monospaced font. I contrasted proportional and monospaced fonts in the article, but the lede image is the only visual example of both next to each other (short of pointing out that the article text itself is proportional), (2) The upper "typewriter" text is a decent illustration of the "river effect" and shows examples of other typewriter conventions—such as the use of three hyphens to approximate an em dash. These examples are all discussed throughout the article, and the current lede image illustrates them—as part of the lede's summary of the article.

Having said that, there are other editors who watch this page and chime in from time to time. If they prefer this image, I'll be happy to make the change. Or they can simply make the change themselves, of course.

If there is no consensus for change, would it still be advisable to change the .jpeg format of the current lede image to another file format?

And thanks again for your interest in this article, as well as your feedback on the Featured Article nomination page for this article. It is appreciated. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems. The advice for images that have text is to use either SVG or PNG. In this case, you can convert those images into PNG, which scales better than JPG. Jappalang (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede image

I tried pretending I have a small monitor and increased the font size a few times while looking at the lede. The lede image crunches the text on its left very small. I know some people that use "mini" laptops that would probably see the same thing at "normal" font size. Think it's OK to disregard the guideline about placement of the lede image given the dimensions of this one. Thoughts? Airborne84 (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Added FAQ Page

If there are more evident questions out there, please add them. If there is a question that might bear adding but you don't know the answer, post it here and I'll probably be able to answer/add it. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you proposing here? The addition of an "FAQ" section to the article? Wikipedia articles should not have "FAQ" sections. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 01:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Air is referring to Talk:Sentence_spacing/FAQ and the associated template at the top of this page. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear about that. Thanks for clarifying Cybercobra. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Transition to single spacing" section dubious?

The first sentence needs more authoritative references. In the second sentence uncited "various possible reasons" looks weasel. The central claim that "the monospaced typewriter grid was broken in 1941" is seriously dodgy. IBM announced a proportional product in 1941 but their first physical device was in 1944 [IBM typewriter milestones and it was a niche product for its whole life anyway. The penultimate sentence claims "the computer gradually replaced the typewriter as the primary method of creating text" but doesn't mention the advent of proportional spacing for computer output (e.g. Diablo, Qume, IBM 6/640, Xerox Star/3700/9700, 24-pin dot matix etc). This section is not FA quality: IMO the history of how office products moved to proportional spacing should appear in Computer font or Typeface, rather than being incomplete original research in Sentence spacing. - Pointillist (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, this section was recently expanded to address an FAC nom issue. So, your comments that it focuses too much on "office products" is well-taken and easily addressed. I took the "weasel" sentence from a very early version of this page before I "arrived". It was either insufficiently sourced, or the source has been diluted or lost as I made massive changes (hopefully for the better) to this article. I've been wondering if it seemed strange to anyone else, so now that you mention it - I'm happy to strike it.

I have a couple of other reliable sources to add to the mix to replace this and bolster the section. However, Williams and Felici have written in this area for decades and are very reliable sources. Wersheler-Henry's book is also well researched with comprehensive endnotes and Bibliography, so I think it could reasonably comprise a small portion of this section - even if only as support to the other sources and material. I'll address this later today.

Thanks for your comments and I'd urge you put your obvious expertise in this area to good use in the Sentence spacing in the digital age article. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten:

Reduced focus on the "Executive" typewriter innovation.

Kept Wersheler-Henry as a reference. I'm not an expert in this area, so I won't debate if the information in the book is truthful. Yet, it is verifiable and is considered an WP:RS, so it's reasonable to retain it with the accompanying material.

There are unsourced sentences—it was hard to string together only sourced statements and still "tell a story" which was an FAC comment I was trying to address. The first sentence seems unsourced, but is addressed by the endnote at the end of the second sentence. I thought it useful as a transition sentence. The other unsourced sentences do not seem contentious to me. I could be wrong. The very last sentence could be, but it is sourced by the entire following section on "Modern literature." --Airborne84 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the transition to single spacing came from the computer, not from the typewriter. I have been using a typewriter since I was 5 (mid-1950's), and double spacing after sentences was what everybody did, and I still use them when I can (to no avail typically, as with Wikipedia and Facebook). In our office, we quit issuing our reports (though not always our letters) with single spacing almost as soon as we opened in 1998. No less an expert than Dilbert took up the issue in a cartoon series a few years ago. Shocking Blue (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article covers the computer's impact on single sentence spacing—although, as stated, the movement in professional print media began in the 1940s in the U.S. and U.K. The Dilbert note is an interesting one. If you can find the exact cartoon, it might add some "flavor" to the article—perhaps under the "controvery" section. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"The first sentence needs more authoritative references."

The Penguin Books' 1947 guide to typesetters, the Penguin Composition Rules, are a set of general style instructions that were intended to raise the standard of their post-war book work and produce consistent results from suppliers. In the very first section, its author, the typographer Jan Tschichold wrote "All major punctuation marks – full point, colon and semicolon – should be followed by the same spacing as is used throughout the rest of the line." It may be that his reasoning was from an aesthetic point of view, but bear in mind that typesetters may also charge per keystroke. In those days Penguin's paperbacks were typeset afresh, rather than scaled-down reprints of setting from a hardback edition that has become the norm today, so avoiding double-word spacing represented a potential cost saving when you consider the number of Penguin paperbacks that were produced and the economic conditions of the postwar period. 50 years on, when I was designing text pages for Penguin, they still adhered to Tschichold's rules and had updated them as printing technology changed. Ricadus (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I reverted some good faith edits. Unfortunately, they contradicted comments on the peer-review and three FAC nominations. Since the current FAC nomination seems to be garnering support, substantial changes to the article that contradict the comments there will not help the article's FA chances. Please review the FAC history before making substantive edits. [3] Of course, if the article can be improved, that is fine. Changes should be done with the FAC history context in mind, however. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

note: this article became a FA on July 25, 2010. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors who did the work to reach FA status. I was contributing to typography articles in 2009, but not recently, so I was pleased to see the FA article today.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia do?

Amusing that the article does not mention Wikipedia's own style on double spacing between sentence. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (double-spaced before sig.)

Well we go by WP:MOS and you'd probably get a better answer at WT:MOS, rather than here, which is the talk page for the encyclopaedia article on the general subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, no matter the amount of spaces you type, only one will appear, so by default Wikipedia uses single sentence spacing. For example, this sentence begins with one space. This sentence begins with two. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-references are generally avoided. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole article has single spaced sentences.

Seems like we have some POV on the subject here. Maybe we should alter some of the paragraphs so the sentences are separated by two spaces, and leave others as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukiari (talk • contribs)

(1) That would be inconsistent within the article and with the rest of Wikipedia (2) It's impossible or extremely cumbersome to do double-spacing in HTML (read the article) (3) "No known style guide published after 1990 prescribes double sentence spacing for final or published work." --Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph Marks

Early text, in books, placed great emphasis on the text block and its color (blackness). These were rectangular (and I still use the Golden Rectangle). Before the text block disintegrated with time, a paragraph mark, one character wide, was placed in it to mark one side of a large unit of punctuation: the paragraph. (Eric Gill's only book uses these to ease reading.) This would seem to contradict the need for two spaces to help mark a smaller unit of punctuation: the sentence. Some books indicated paragraphs by number, moved the initial mark (number) to the left margin. Accordingly, regular paragraph marks appear to have been moved there; but, not longer necessary, were removed, leaving a square block. As line spacing increases, it seems reasonable to enlarge paragraph indentation to form a square.

The above is conjecture; but it suggests it logical that larger units of punctuation be indicated in more noticeable ways. The early use of one-space paragraph marks gives logical support to using one space only after a period, or full stop. Geologist (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Book Typesetting Style Manuals on French and Regular Spacing

Kingsport Press Style Manual for Floormen undated but very pre-1969 (the year I was hired on and received my copy) on Sentence Spacing:

SENTENCE SPACING

French Spacing

When the instructions specify French sentence spacing, use the same space between sentences that is used between words in the line.

Regular Spacing

When the instructions specify regular spacing, use the same space between sentences that is used between words plus a nut space.

Kingsport Press From the Notebooks of H.J.H & D.H.A. on Composition (Linotype)

SENTENCE SPACING

French

In French sentence spacing a spaceband only is used at the end of a sentence. In French spacing use only a spaceband after a colon, regardless of whether the colon is followed by a cap, or by a lower case letter, or by a figure.

Regular

In regular sentence spacing a spaceband and a nut quad are used at the end of a sentence. In regular spacing use a spaceband and a thin space if a colon is followed by a cap. In regular spacing use a spaceband only if a colon is followed by a lower case letter or by a figure. ....

Spaceband is a variable width word space in Linotype. The vast majority of production jobs I saw and worked on at Kingsport Press, hundreds of titles between 1969 and 2003, were French spacing, whether Linotype, VideoComp, Linotron or PostScript. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this information! I can get hold of the references. They will provide some more support for the French-spacing topic which is a bit confusing for most people. I'll add the material when the refernces come in. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Double sentence spacing

Please leave the lede image in place. The article went through a peer review and three FAC reviews over a 3-month period. The central tenet of the article is not in question. Double sentence spacing and double spacing are two different things. Two carriage returns after a line is double spacing. Strking the keyboard twice after terminal punctuation is an example of double sentence spacing. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

The article says, "Another consideration is that as terminal punctuation marks the end of a sentence, and additional spacing is itself punctuation,[9] additional spacing is redundant." This is not true; periods, which are terminal punctuation, also mark abbreviations, initials, etc. I hope that this mistake can be corrected, and that a source can be found for the best reason for extra sentence space (imho): to distinguish sentence-ending periods from others. I find the current practice confusing only when the word after a non-sentence-ending period is capitalized, which is an unusual situation. It would be interesting to know whether the studies on readability used texts that included this situation.

On another point, I agree that the subject of most interest to general readers is typing on computers: one space or two? But the article also covers typography, and there the alternative to one word space is not two word spaces but something less, as in TeX and the old style guide reproduced as an illustration. It would be great if the article could address this and if there are studies on the readability of one space versus 1.333 spaces and the like. Also, the quotations under "Typography" deprecating "two spaces" are knocking down a straw man.

Finally, the section on rivers seems poorly integrated. If extra space after sentences creates rivers, which make text harder to read, then why is there no significant difference in readability? Does extra space have compensating advantages? And does the use of 1.333 spaces create less severe rivers than two spaces? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some good comments and questions:

• 1. I've noted your point about periods occurring in the center of a sentence in many blogs. I didn't include it in the controversy section because I only used reliable references and sources. Experts don't discuss that point since it's like many others in English. Like most sentences that could be confusing, an expert will simply tell you to reword it, such as spelling out the acronym or changing the order of the sentence. The remaining instances of unweildy sentences should be infrequent enough (as you noted) that it's not worth changing the entire English language for them. A good writer can probably eliminate any use of this if it's confusing. I will note that the "Controversy" section could be expanded into its own article that includes popular opinion (plenty of opinions out there). Finally, it's irrelevant if that statement you mentioned wasn't "true". Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. We simply present the information given by reliable sources. That statement came from an experienced typographer, and it's verifiable.
  • I disagree strongly about the relevance of whether a statement in Wikipedia is true, but the point is academic here. Plenty of sources say that periods occur in the middle of sentences. For instance, "When an abbreviation containing a period occurs within a sentence, the period remains." Geraldine Woods, Webster's New World Punctuation, Simplified and Applied
  • Likewise plenty of sources say the purpose of typography is to make written text clear. In a quick look, I didn't find a source that says that if something that occurs in writing is unclear with a given typographic convention, changing the writing is better than changing the convention.

According to one of Wikipedia's core policies, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

As I said, this point is academic, because there are reliable sources that say terminal punctuation can occur in the middle of a sentence. I gave one. Therefore including just a quotation that says it can't is POV. (And in my opinion, giving only one point of view is especially bad when that point of view is false.) I don't know how you want to handle this, since I don't know what Bringhurst says, but I don't think it's good to leave the sentence as it is. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is. I re-read your original post. The issue is not with Bringhurst, it's with the way I worded the sentence. The article only states that periods cannot exist in the middle of sentences if you consider "terminal punctuation" in a broader sense in that it could also end an abbreviation mid-sentence. I wrote the Wikipedia article on terminal punctuation. Of all the references I used, I only saw one that used terminal punctuation in that sense. So, I could have been very precise in the sentence you mentioned and said, "Another consideration is that as periods, question marks and exclamation marks denote the end of sentences, and additional spacing is itself punctuation,[9] additional spacing is redundant." However, I originally wrote the entire article in this very precise way. When it went through the peer review and three FAC nominations, I was told to get rid of all the verbiosity. It took a long time and it turns out that, for a popular audience, less precision=better prose=Featured Article on Wikiepda. Again, I think that the sentence as worded might only be misinterpreted by a very few people that are extremely well-informed, such as yourself. However, we can let other editors weigh in on this if you think this sentence should return to wordier precision. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

After a bit more thought, I also don't think that the sentence, as written, implies that mid-sentence "end" punctuation can't be used, in the same sense that it doesn't exclude periods/full stops used in numbers, for example. A statement that terminal punctuation marks the end of a sentence means just that—and needn't imply that those punctuation marks cannot do anything else. Again, other editors can weigh in though. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what I wrote was so hard to understand. I think the present version does imply that those punctuation marks cannot do anything else, because extra space isn't redundant if it distinguishes end-of-sentence periods from those occurring in sentences. Saying "periods, question marks, and exclamation marks" would have exactly the same problem. It's too bad no RS discussed that argument for extra space even to refute it.

It's kind of you to say I'm extremely well-informed, but you said a number of blog posts have brought up the argument about distinguishing the different uses of periods. I think people who take that argument seriously are likely to object just as I do. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If a dissenting opinion could be found by a reliable source, it would certainly merit inclusion. David Jury's quote indirectly discussed this with this statement: "Some argue that the 'additional' space after a comma and full point serves as a 'pause signal' for the reader. But this is unnecessary (and visually disruptive) since the pause signal is provided by the punctuation mark itself." This doesn't directly address your point about mid-sentence punctuation, I understand, but it provides some more context. It also assumes that writers will ensure punctuation is not ambiguous. I don't remember anything else from a reliable source directly about the redundancy of extra spaces, but I'll look through my notes in the next few days. I had a lot of material that I didn't include in the article simply because it all said basically the same thing—typographers are in agreement about this topic, they just say it in different ways. There are works on typography that I didn't include, so it would be possible to canvas some of them to try to find more information--especially if you try some published in other languages. You probably won't find much there though, because this topic isn't discussed much outside of typographic works in English. Sentence spacing just wasn't an issue in most languages outside of English (my original research around Europe, South America, and Francophone Africa). --Airborne84 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Elements of Typographic Style (2004), Bringhurst stated that "larger spaces (e.g., en spaces) are themselves punctuation, but that the rule [of single spacing] is sometimes altered when "sentences begin with lowercase letters. In the absence of a capital, a full en space (M/2) between sentences may be welcome." It seems that experts (at least Bringhurst anyway) think that terminal punctuation, combined with a single space followed by a capital letter is sufficient to identify the end of a sentence. Of course, it's possible to replicate this in the middle of a sentence, for some abbreviations followed by or combined with a proper noun (notably in the German language). However, this would be infrequent enough (and better reworded) so as to not provoke a major cry for help from readers, IMO. I hope that helps. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• 2. I don't think the direct studies used periods in the middle of the sentence. I could look through them again, but, as I remember, they were generally well-written prose.
  • All kinds of things occur in generally well-written prose. For instance, Vladimir Nabokov's prose has been praised to the skies, and in Pale Fire the main narrator likes to refer to people in the form "Jane P.", for example.

True. But it's possible to put an abbreviation in the middle of the sentence without introducing ambiguity or lack of clarity. If a period mid-sentence did either of those two things, it typically wouldn't be well-written prose—with few exceptions (perhaps poetry or somthing similar). --Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• 3. The article does discuss the "traditional spacing" that Tex replicates with its /frenchspacing function. However, it's not "double spacing" in it's most literal sense (see the FAQ on the talk page). It's a single em space.
  • I think this is backwards. What \frenchspacing gives you is the spacing recommended by the sources in the article, where the space after a period is a word space in all situations.

My mistake, I meant to type "replicates when not using the \frenchspacing function".

• 4. As far as the "Typography" section, I suspected that some people wouldn't like the information there. However, typographers are pretty unanimous about this subject. Some use neutral terms to discuss why double sentence spacing shouldn't be used and some uses much stronger verbiage. Our job as editors is simply to report it.
  • My question here is the same as David A. Spitzley's below, I think. What are they unanimous about? That the space after a period should be the same regardless of whether it ends a sentence, or that it can be more at the end of a sentence but not twice the word space? Are they using "double sentence spacing" as a hyperbole for "extra sentence spacing"?

They are pretty unanimous that spacing after a sentence should be equal to a normal word space (in that particular font). There are a few caveats, but none that aren't discussed in the article.

Then that's what the article should say. As it is, the lead points out that there are three choices: a single space, an enlarged single space, and a double space. Quotations that condemn double spaces leave open the possibility of a single enlarged space, so I think they're confusing if used to indicate a unanimous preference for a single space. It would be better to take them out and just have the quotations that say clearly what they mean. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this in the next week. In the article as a whole, it's appropriate to include sources that talk about enlarged single spacing as well as double spacing. However, if there are sentences or sections that mix them together in a way that is confusing, that is a problem. Which quote(s) are you specifically talking about? I'll also sort through in the next week to see if more clarity is needed. --Airborne84 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• 5. It would be nice if there were more studies, I fully agree. As far as the effect on rivers on readability, I don't know if holes or rivers have an effect on readability or not. The direct studies were rather limited and more studies are needed for a good answer. It could turn out that extra space between sentences actually improves readability. Again, I tried not to interpret the studies. I just presented the ones that were verifiable and relevant to this topic.
  • I'm questioning the relevance of the "Related studies" section. Studies show that sentence spacing doesn't significantly affect readability; that's all that needs to be said on readability. If extra sentence space interfered with readability, then we might need an explanation in terms of modern standards or of rivers, but as it is, there's nothing to explain. There might still be a place for typographers' esthetic objection to extra sentence space, especially if it's clear that this is the producers' taste, not the users'.

To be a featured article, it must be comprehensive. I found two sources that thought other studies could be relevant to this convention (cited in the article). In that light, they can be included. For my part, I was glad to find those sources to allow their inclusion. If I couldn't find sources that stated that, I probably would have invoked Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and included them anyway. I've visited over 100 websites with people arguing back and forth about this topic. Supporters on both sides argue for the "readability" or "legibility" of their preference. I have seen exactly zero non-experts who have provided a single study to back up their opinion. I found very few experts who referred to studies. Given that the few direct studies are limited in scope (only on-screen type) and the researchers themselves stated that more studies were needed, simply providing a single short paragraph on the inconclusive direct studies leaves the reader wanting. Since there is more to say on the subject, I thought that readers would want to see it.

But the article still leaves me wanting just as much. And worse yet, I have to think about the "related studies" section to realize that it's not what I want, which is evidence that bears on whether extra sentence spacing is a good idea. Indeed, I'm not sure why you wanted it in the article, except the statements from experts that extra sentence spacing causes rivers, which they don't like. I understand that the studies you'd have liked don't exist, but the present solution doesn't work for me.

Thanks for your patience in discussing this. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It was also rather laborious putting all the studies together. That's irrelevant to anyone but me, of course. The utility here is that this is the only comprehensive collection of studies on this topic that exists...anywhere. In that sense, it helps make Wikipedia better. Thanks again and best regards, --Airborne84 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your extensive research and detailed answers. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a sentence from the article: "The debate continues, notably on the World Wide Web—as many people use search engines to try to find what is correct." Why is that here? I don't know of any other article that mentions its subject's popularity in Web searches. Kevin S. (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE, the lede must summarize the article. I thought that was a reasonable way to do so IRT the "Controversy" section, which covers the debate regarding this topic. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Separation of Concepts

After reading this article, I was struck that is seems there are two different ideas being blended together without being explicitly distinguished. One is that one shouldn't hit the spacebar twice between sentences when typing, while the second is that with current technology extra space between sentences can be achieved with a single space correctly kerned (i.e. 3-em spaces). It seems to me that it would be useful to specifically clarify whether the purpose of moving away from double spacing is "style guides say you should achieve extra white space between sentences by adjusting kerning on a single character" or "style guides say you shouldn't have extra white space between sentences". It seems to me that both messages are coming through, and they don't mean the same thing. David A Spitzley (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to address that. I don't know that there are any "messages" that should be coming through. It's a collection of encyclopedic references—although to be a Featured Article, it has to have well-written prose, so it can't jump randomly around, so to speak.

Many style guides do say what is in your latter phrase in quotes. That's more developed in the sister article, Sentence spacing in language and style guides, which is just summarized here.

This article was originally much longer. The three FAC nominations and the peer review brought it down to the current size. Some concepts had to be separated back out due to too much summary, but it seemed like the editors at FAC thought it was sufficent as you see it now (with a few adjustments in the last few days). That's not to say the article is perfect. If you see a specific way that the article could be clearer, please discuss it here. Of course, you can certainly go ahead and make edits. However, I have a rather substantial set of notes and references on this topic, so if we discuss a change here, I will be in a good position to source it to the standard required of an FA. Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Typewriter conventions

I reverted the deletion of the sentence noting "typewriter conventions". Double sentence spacing is one of numerous examples of typewriter conventions that were based on the mechanical limitations of the typewriter. In that sense, placing sentence spacing within the framework of similar "typewriter conventions" is relevant. There are plenty of examples of this in many Wikipedia articles. It shouldn't be overdone, but I think that one sentence is reasonable. If other editors feel differently, feel free to chime in. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How a Variable-Width Font Works

Here is a blockquote from another section:

...you are bordering at times on original research. For example, when you said that even the space in a proportional font has a fixed width, you pointed to this, which, while it does indeed discuss various white spaces and how wide they are, does not mention the word "proportional"...

Here is a description of the difference between a monospaced (or fixed-width) font and a variable-width font:  [How a VWF Works].  Specifically, the variable-width font also has a width table, where each character is independently assigned a fixed width, i.e., "an array which stores the widths of each letter."  Note that the reference connects the term "variable-width font" to the term "proportional font" in the [top paragragh], and Wikipedia currently considers the terms to be the same.  Also, note that there is no discussion here of "justification."

I would say that knowledge of the data structures associated with proportional fonts is unrelated to "original research" but is common industry knowledge.  For example, [this website] has game developers talking about upgrading from fixed-width to variable-width fonts.  One developer mentions that it took him about a day to add the data structure and implement the driver. 

As for the Microsoft reference, this reference is already listed in the Article.  The reference mentions the names of four proportional fonts, and other pages in the [11-page document] use the word "proportional."  FYI, RB  66.217.117.41 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this improving the Sentence spacing article (which is the purpose of this talk page)? By the way, except for the Microsoft page, none of the other references meet WP:RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, please see WP:TOPPOST, and [4].  Regarding the assertion about the WP:RS, I don't see relevance since WP:RS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources."  More to the point, do you agree that the Microsoft reference is discussing the implementation of a proportional space?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.69 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this is not an article on the mechanics of typesetting or its modern computer equivalents, nor (as far as I can tell) is there disagreement on the fact that monospaced and variable width fonts are different. The reason I raise WP:RS is that we should be discussing how to improve this article, which requires reliable sources. Pointing to web pages that do not meet WP:RS does nothing to improve the article (since the points raised therein, even if applicable, could not be cited to those sources). For example, if I said my Aunt Tillie thought we should all use triple spaces after punctuation, that has no bearing on improving this article (though it plays a large role in the forthcoming Aunttilliepedia ;-) ).

My basic point is that we agreed to move on, so let's focus on things in the Sentence spacing article itself (which does not even use the words "variable-width font", though it does refer to proportional fonts). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Things IMO we are not talking about in this section: (1) "mechanics of typesetting", (2) "modern computer equivalent", (3) whether or not monospaced and variable-width fonts are different, (4) Aunt Tillie, (5) using triple spaces after sentences, (6) moving on, (7) whether or not various editors agreed to move on, (8) editors focusing on things in the Sentence spacing article, (9) usage by the current article of the words "variable-width font", and (10) whether or not I agree that the "pointed to" sources are WP:RS.

Things that are not relevant IMO in this section: (1) discussion of improving the article with WP:RS, (2) the fact that WP:ELNO does not reference WP:RS, (3) the possibility that some editors might not agree with this last policy statement and assert that "factually inaccurate material" must be determined using WP:RS reliable sources, and (4) the theory that removing questionable external links is not "improving the Sentence spacing article".  BTW, if an editor here thinks that discussing removing questionable external links is not "discussing improvements to the Sentence spacing article" please state so clearly.

Things we are talking about in this section:  (1) indirectly [Questionable External Link] which is analysis under WP:ELNO, (2) a response from one of the editors that questioned that [11-page document] and in particular [Page 5 of 11] applied to proportional fonts (or to only monospaced fonts).  I'd still like to know if there is agreement that [Page 5 of 11] applies to proportional fonts–a one-word response could be useful.  RB  66.217.117.148 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a page for protracted discussions. Please make a brief comment that is compatible with WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM, and make it clear what you are proposing as an improvement to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why responsible Wikipedians are making off-topic comments in this section.  I have already drawn attention here to WP:TOPPOST.  The question I have asked is not difficult, and only needs a one-word response.  RB  66.217.117.148 (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any proposal for an improvement to the article. Please provide such a proposal or stop posting comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Foolish" is not a constructive word

This point has been previously mentioned without receiving a response.

Date on which the word "foolish" was added to Sentence Spacing: [Revision as of 07:07, 6 April 2010].  Note that use of the word 'fool' is highly charged (ref: Matthew 5:22c (ESV)).  The use of this word was not mentioned in two peer reviews and three FAC reviews.  Please explain how the use of this word was added, made it through two peer reviews, and made it through three FAC reviews; all seemingly without regard for the color that the one word adds to the entire article.  RB  66.217.117.206 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a direct quotation, cited to a reliable source, namely a publication by Adobe Systems. According to WP:NPOV, section 2.8 (Words to watch) "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)." I suggest you direct your complaints to Robin Williams at Adobe Systems. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

PS Even the Bible uses fool perjoratively - see Psalm 14:1 and Matthew 23:17. As you no doubt know, anyone can quote scripture - see Matthew 4:6. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

PPS I freely admit my last PS and this are off topic. Sorry. Please do not refactor my comments though. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RB, I didn't respond to this before for the same reason that Ruhrfisch gave. However, you did state before that this word is not constructive or useful. It may be worthwhile to address your assertion here. I believe that many people could find this comment by a reliable source useful. In some cases, very useful. Keep in mind that uncounted thousands of people search on the Web for "one space or two?" and similar searches. Someone who is preparing a desktop published work (DTP) may want to know what experts have to say on the subject before they put their final product out (what is mostly available on the Web is blogs where people talk about their opinions and preferences). Wikipedia, as a collection of reliable encyclopedic references, provides a "useful" answer for these people on this point. I understand that you don't agree with Williams' position, but that doesn't mean that the statement wouldn't be useful to others. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that "foolish" appears in the source (which I have not confirmed), and given the text is in a "Controversies" section and appears as an opinion, it is appropriate. Anyone thinking they might use double sentence spacing in DTP would benefit from knowing that a highly relevant source feels sufficiently strongly to use that term. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Foolish" appears on page 14 of Williams' book, The Mac is Not a Typewriter ("unprofessional" appears in the source that Ruhrfisch noted). I should mention that I used the summary style to write the article, so these terms are representative of typographic opinions; they don't represent only a few isolated, fringe comments by experts. A few more statements follow by reliable sources—there are, of course, many more. I didn't see the need to include these in the article. I only note them here to show RB that the strong terms used in the article are representative of the opinion of experts, as captured in the summary style of the article.

Robert Brighurst – "Your typing as well as your typesetting will benefit from unlearning this quaint Victorian habit."

James Felici – "consecutive spaces have no role in typesetting."

David Jury – "why do so many people continue to use the primitive (and entirely obsolete) conventions of the typist?"

Ellen Lupton – "Crime: Two spaces between sentences…all such spaces must be purged from a manuscript when it is set in type."

Laurie Smith – "extra spacing makes the body text both unattractive as a visual element…this seemingly small thing will date you, give the impression that you are not someone who keeps up with the times, and detract from the appearance."

Ilene Strizver – "There is never a need for double spaces between sentences when setting type on your computer as was done in typewriter days. In fact, it is a serious type crime"; "Forget about tolerating differences of opinion: typographically speaking, typing two spaces before the start of a new sentence is absolutely, unequivocally wrong."

Robin Williams – double sentence spacing is “amateurish, unsophisticated, and unprofessional”…it "will cause your work to be ridiculed”

RB, I hope that helps answer your question. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

RB, you have said on WP:RS/N that this article should not be a WP:FA. Since the goal of this talk page is improving the Sentence spacing article, could you please give specific details? If this were to be listed at WP:FAR, the nomination would need to say how this failed to meet WP:Featured article criteria, so (as I have repeatedly requested) could you please specify where this does not meet those criteria? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference is taken out of context.  At the WP:RSN noticeboard, following Weh walt's response, I dropped the issue of WP:FAR; instead, I stayed with WP:RSN.  WP:RSN has now confirmed that the Article has relied on unverifiable research; specifically, that the research "doesn't claim to be" reliable.  As a new response to the admin's request, I did spend some time looking at the topic, and have added the subsection here "WP:FAR".  RB  66.217.117.148 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear RB, I have responded below to the FAR comment. As an admin, I have access to certain tools that allow me to delete or undelete material here and block or unblock users. It means I have earned the trust of the community to use these tools, but it does not mean that I am some sort of expert or that my opinion is any more valuable than anyone else's. In the future, please refer to me by my username (Ruhrfisch) and not as "the sdmin". Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAR

WP:FAR is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.  Any user can "contribute."  "The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:08, 15 July 2010" (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sentence spacing/archive3).  We probably wouldn't need to consider this much before the middle of January, because WP:FAR states, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here."  Since the first stage of WP:FAR is "raising issues at article talk," this is a current process.  RB  66.217.117.148 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As you note, this article recently passed WP:FA, so it was considered to meet the FA criteria then. FAR is for articles that no longer meet the featured article criteria. These are as follows:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—

• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

• (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
• (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

Media. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

So that we may all work to improve it, could you please say which of these specific criteria you feel this article does not meet? Please note that if this article is nominated at WP:FAR, this is what will have to be done there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN opinion is that an unreliable source is used for three sentences in the Article

Here is the link with the [WP:RSN opinion that web word does not provide WP:RS sourcing for three sentences in the Sentence spacing article].  The opinion stated, "I think the cited piece at winword.com is not reliable (in our sense) and doesn't claim to be..."

Note that an unverified report on web word.com was the original source of a previous Wikipedia faux pas [See "one single reference"].

I have removed the three source-references from the Article and added "citation needed" templates.

This discussion has spawned from the closely related section entitled "Sentence spacing#Most_Style_Guides"  To my colleague, your silence was your consensus.  I suspect you could reopen this case at WP:RSN, but before you do so please consider the strength of the opinion that the source "doesn't claim to be" reliable.  You'd be taking the position that a two-sentence research "article" based on hearsay evidence is reliable.  Web word might be described as a synthesis of blog material—it is not fact checked, it is self-published, it is out-of-date (many broken links), it contains known errors, and has previously caused controversy for this Article.  WP:BURDEN means that the three sentences must be properly sourced, or be removed.  I have provided one solution, so it is possible to do so without removing the sentences.  Nor am I proposing that anything be done now beyond the changes I have already made to the article.  FYI, RB  66.217.118.90 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Three things. (1) You did not achieve a new consensus, (2) WP:RSN does not set policy, (3) it is too soon (IMO) to try to achieve a new consensus on Webword. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources and consensus

Dear RB, there are no experts on Wikipedia and many different editors with many different opinions. This article has been through two peer reviews (only one of which was substantive), three nominations at WP:FAC, and two submissions to WP:RS/N (the reliable sources noticeboard). The substantive peer review, three FAC reviews, and first submission to RS/N all found no reliability issues with any of the sources used in the article. One editor weighed in at the second pass through RS/N and agreed with you that webword.com was not a reliable source. I fail to see how there is any consensus to remove the winword.com source as not reliable. My silence is mine, it is not yours to define and it definitely not consensus (an argument from silence is a weak one at best, and I am telling you explicitly that I do not agree with you). WP:CONSENSUS says the following about noticeboards: If a dispute is in a particular topic area or concerns the application of a particular policy or guideline, posting a request to the noticeboard may attract people with some experience in that area. I have an idea on how to improve the article, which I will post soon. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Ideas are welcome, of course, but it may not be necessary in this case (depending on what you were going to suggest). I added another reliable source in response to RBs concerns as noted in the thread above. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Most style guides"

RB, you apparently still object to the use of the Webword.com reference. Since you did not achieve a new consensus to remove, I think (IMO) that it is still premature to raise that issue again at the present time. You did not achieve any consensus at WP:RSN either time you posted there, at a page that does not set policy.

However, at WP:RSN, you point to a larger issue behind your objection to Webword.com, which aligns with your objection to the Leonard reference as well. They both support the words "most style guides" in the article. You do not seem to have raised this issue here yet. If you had raised this issue here, perhaps we could have resolved this earlier. Are these words in the article the source of your contention with the Webword reference? If so, could you explain why? --Airborne84 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We received a clear statement from WP:RSN yesterday, maybe you didn't see the final response.  Here is a link: [Webword is not WP:reliable for "these guides tell writers"].  The response was that the source "is not reliable (in our sense) and doesn't claim to be."

In response to your question, no, I researched webword including the related sources.

The quick fix here for the three sentences is to remove the webword source and add the three guides documented by Leonard.  Also, the phrase "final or published work" was WP:SYNTH.  Also, the reference does not support "word space" only "space".

• 47 Soon after the turn of the century, the majority of style guides indicated that only one space was proper between sentences (APA, 2001; Chicago, 2003; MLA, 2003).[47]
• 52 The majority of style guides prescribe the use of a single space after terminal punctuation (APA, 2001; Chicago, 2003; MLA, 2003).[52]
• 85 Most style guides indicate that single sentence spacing is proper (APA, 2001; Chicago, 2003; MLA, 2003),[85]

Regarding Webword, please see the statements on file, [Webword not WP:Reliable], including that unreliable sources are not good for Wikipedia's reputation.  RB  66.217.118.80 (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the Webword.com reference as there is no new consensus now. In my opinion, it is too soon to try again to achieve a new consensus since nothing significant has changed. However, at the RSN noticeboard you noted that, "Neither this 'consensus' nor it's relevance for the general population seems to draw the attention of secondary reliable references." I suggest that, given the amount of people that ask about sentence spacing on the Web, that this "consensus" may be the most relevant and useful information for many average visitors. There may be a few people interested in the history of sentence spacing, but relatively few, I think. It's also not true that this "consensus" draws no attention as noted above:

http://www.istc.org.uk/Communication_Resources/Style_Guide/punctuation.html

http://professorialmusings.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-space-after-closing-punctuation.html

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/spaces-period-end-of-sentence.aspx

http://www.interpretationbydesign.com/?p=1941

http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/10/30/one-space-or-two/

I'll admit to some interest here: why are you so interested in removing the wording that would seem to be the most useful for the average visitor? I cannot see how this makes the article, and Wikipedia, better. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I will take your point that you want to discuss in this section the "benefit" of "most style guides", not the WP:RSN decision.  The basic response IMO is that Wikipedia is not for WP:SYNTH.  By your own words, your personal "research" is that there is a "consensus among writing styles", it is your belief that this is of interest to readers of Wikipedia, and that this research has motivated you to work here.  Your work is appreciated.  As far as a 'consensus', the only scientific conclusion available breaks the consensus.  Although it stands alone, none of us here are aware of newer research that has disputed the conclusion in Lo h (2002).  (BTW, there is a big difference between "inconclusive" and "not statistically significant".  WP:RS states, "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.")  The point is that the responsibility for sourcing is discussed in WP:BURDEN.  I'm not up to your speed in numerous technical elements, and I have provided one example of how the sentences might be reworked.  If you don't want to rework the sentences right now, maybe we can agree to leave "citation needed" tags in the article for now.  FYI, RB  66.217.118.90 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You never answered my question, unfortunately. Also, I've also shown that there is a "consensus" among style guides. Perhaps you didn't peruse the material in the links I provided.

Anyway, your tag measures, besides going against the consensus (probably why it was reverted) are not needed in any case. I tried to use accessible Web pages to discuss the consensus, even though verifiability doens't imply ease of access. In some cases, I thought it better for the average reader to have certain material from the article readily available. I thought it would be more "useful".

Mignon Fogarty, on page 85 of her book, Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, states that "most style guides recommend one space". She does not list any caveats, and does not list any style guide examples. Her statement stands alone. If another source for "most style guides" is that important to you, we can add that one. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote follows:

You never answered my question, unfortunately. Also, I've also shown that there is a "consensus" among style guides. Perhaps you didn't peruse the material in the links I provided.

And perhaps you didn't peruse the material at WP:SYNTH.  IMO you have just given an example of WP:SYNTH—looking at five references and concluding that there is a "consensus".  Any more I could say here would just be repeating words at WP:SYNTH.  I do not agree that I didn't answer your question.  RB  66.217.118.145 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The opinion rendered in the WP:RSN decisionopinion, which is neither refuted nor even disputed by anyone here, states that we should either use attribution, "or else a different source should be found, one that cites the style guides about which a generalization is being made."  The Foga rty reference as you have shown it, "most style guides recommend one space", does not identify the style guides used to make the generalization.  Also your response does not address that (1) "word space" is not sourced, and (2) "final or published work" is not sourced.  The [citation needed] tags remain appropriate IMO for all three sentences.  RB  66.217.118.145 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me. There was not a decision rendered at RS:N. You posted a question, and you got an opinion from one editor. That's all there is to it, nothing more. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the word "decision" and inserted the word "opinion".  RB  66.217.118.145 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break and proposal

RB, WP:SYNTH is opposed to things like taking two unrelated ideas and putting them together in a way not supported by the sources. It is not against citing opinions supported by the references. Even leaving webword.com aside, Leonard's 2009 AECT presentation abstract says "...most style manuals recommend the use of only one space following the period (APA, 2001; Chicago, 2003; MLA, 2003)." Fogarty's Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, states that "most style guides recommend one space". This is not SYNTH. [Note the rest of my original quotation and argiument has been arbitrarily chopped off by RB and continues in the "Proposal" section, below. I add a copy of my original signature and time stamp here to retain attribution] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote from Ruhrfisch follows:

RB, WP:SYNTH is opposed to things like taking two unrelated ideas and putting them together in a way not supported by the sources.

Ruhrfisch, IMO, Airborne84 needs to understand, just as you seem to need to understand, that his "consensus", as documented above by five references, is WP:SYNTH.  I think he is doing the right thing by trying to find sources.  P.S. I've added a subsection at the start of the 2nd paragraph of your post.  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.145 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote from Ruhrfisch follows:

Even leaving webword.com aside, Leonard's 2009 AECT presentation abstract says "...most style manuals recommend the use of only one space following the period (APA, 2001; Chicago, 2003; MLA, 2003)." Fogarty's Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, states that "most style guides recommend one space". This is not SYNTH.

Given that there are misunderstandings around here, I want to agree that these are not SYNTH, and also clarify that I have not suggested that they are SYNTH.  RB  66.217.118.145 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not have been clear above. I did not post the five Web sources in an attempt to provide a synthesis to show a consensus on this issue. I provided them for the sole purpose of addressing your assertion that "Neither this 'consensus' nor it's relevance for the general population seems to draw the attention of secondary reliable references."

On the other hand, if you look at the sources individually, you'll see that the secondary sources themselves provide that synthesis, which is allowed at Wikipiedia. So, the sources were not intended to be looked at collectively, but as individual examples of secondary sources that address the consensus being discussed.

I'm not sure what your comment regarding "word space" and Fogarty's source means. If you don't think that Fogarty is referring to this topic, you can certainly obtain the reference and peruse it yourself. And paraphrasing is allowed at Wikipedia.

I'm a little bewildered about your concern regarding "final or published work". The sentences in question can certainly be changed to state only, "most style guides recommend one space," and could even be quoted directly to reflect Fogarty's words in her book. However, a quick scan through Sentence spacing in language and style guides will show that some style guides allow room for double sentence spacing in draft works. If you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have thought that adding the caveat "in final or published work" would be challenged. The caveat's are rather plain to see. Perhaps the biggest potential issue is that with the simple wording noted above, it's likely that people will come to this article, see that, and come to this talk page and say "why aren't these caveat's mentioned"? It could even bring about POV assertions. I think that leaving the caveats is best. A possibility is to mention the caveats in a note. I'll discuss this below IRT Ruhrfisch's proposal. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RB, I have repeatedly asked you NOT TO REFACTOR MY COMMENTS, PERIOD. You split my argument into two sections, and did not even bother to leave a copy of my signature and time stamp for attribution. STOP IT. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I see what happened. I was confused by the above. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BRD discussion for edit 402814700

The diff is [diff] and has the edit description, "(normalize four duplicate references)".  This diff removes 868 bytes, which is a more than 1% reduction to the size of the Article.  The revert has stated, "(Undo per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, will discuss on talk page next)". 

Please begin the BRD discussion for the revert to 402814700.  RB  66.217.118.145 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The next edit removed the webword.com source, which is discussed above (there is not clear consensus to do so). I did not mean to remove the consolidation of the duplicate references, sorry. Please feel free to restore the consolidation (I can do it eventually, but am too busy IRL to do so now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to investigate the issue at the moment because this much attention to an article on whether one space is better than two is unwarranted. RB should bear in mind that being right is not sufficient: collaboration is required, and there is no urgency to this matter so 8 posts in the last 24 hours is not helpful to the encyclopedia (particularly, given all the previous discussion on this and related issues). Also, the attempts to bolster one's position with appeals to BURDEN/RSN/BRD are not helpful (experience is needed to interpret these acronyms; for example, the suggestion that the discussion at RSN is relevant here is mistaken since there was only a single comment). Next time this is raised, please try to write more clearly by focusing on the issue with a summary of the arguments, and a statement of what outcome is desired. Too much time is wasted trying to interpret long and unclear messages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

My suggestion / idea / proposal is to insert a note after the article but before the references which lists the major style and grammar guides and gives their position(s) on this. This would have references and the note could be referred to anywhere the "most syle guides" statement or a variant occurs. The note could be something like: "Style guides that call for only one space after terminal punctuation include ... (Chicago, MLA, APA, etc.)." Exceptions would also be listed in the note. The details would be there for those interested, but the text and refs would not be cluttered up with all the detail. For an example of notes that have refs, see the FA Clemuel Ricketts Mansion.

I also think that that even if webword.com is found not to meet WP:RS, I still see it as fully meeting the criteria for inclusion as an external link, per WP:EL.

Finally, RB, instead of resorting to arguments on policies and guidelines (which can look like WP:Wikilawyering), why not provide counter-examples? What modern major style guides say to always include two spaces after terminal punctuation? I am curious to know which ones do. Thanks, and I look forward to reaction to my proposal to improve the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea very much, it resolves the tension and provides the reader with specific accurate information. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is merit to this idea. It would involve some work. If we went this route, I'd suggest taking the style guides mentioned in the five Web references above and listing them together in the note. This would require some work because I suspect that one or two of the references would be challenged by RB—perhaps at great length. If RB objects to this as synthesis, the note could be specific: source a lists style guide A, B, and C; source B lists B, C, and D; etc.

However, I have a counterproposal that might be considered. Since RB has already noted above that Fogarty's reference (her book, not the Website) is not WP:SYNTH (it manifestly is not), this reference could remain as the primary source for these inline citations (Fogarty's reference is already listed first in the endnotes, of the three references). It can even stand alone if other editors here would like to remove the Webword reference, and leave it only as an external link. I don't think it's necessary, but if RB continues to object to the "in final or published works", the note for the Fogarty and Leonard, et al. reference could then state caveats to "most style guides recommend one space". I (or another editor) can pull in style guides from Sentence spacing in language and style guides as examples that allow room for double sentence spacing in draft works, and list them in the note to identify specific caveats by style guide.

Again, I have no objection in principle to Ruhrfisch's proposal. I think the only substantive change in mine is that the note would list exceptions to clarify the "final or published" wording as opposed to listing style guides that provide for single sentence spacing. Given Sentence spacing in language and style guides and Fogarty's unequivocal statement in her (book) reference, I don't think the latter is necessary.

Hopefully my proposal made sense, as I'm a bit rushed right now IRL. I'll check back in tomorrow. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not mad now and am waiting to hear from RB on this proposal. I assumed that the style guides themselves could be used as the sources. I do not think it has to be all, just a list of some of the major ones (in the US I know from the article and sources that MLA, Chicago and APA could be listed). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with either option. And we don't have to wait for RB if he/she doesn't want to weigh in. RB is one voice here. If anyone else wants to chime in, I'm happy to go with a consensus that supports either option—or leaving the article as is. If no one else voices an opinion, we can go with your proposal since it has the support of you, Nuujinn and me. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think starting with a short list of manuals of style would be just fine, but we should be prepared for additions later. I would suggest that we only include manuals of style that are notable and have an article on WP. The Forgarty book sounds like a good source for this, and Airborne84's approach seems sound, but I do like the idea of pointing to some specific examples from the more significant MOSes out there. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree a short list would be fine. There are 15 English language style guides listed at {{styles}}. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to start with the following:

Chicago Manual of Style, 2003

Oxford Style Manual, 2003

"Turabian"; A Manual for Writers of Research Paper, Theses, and Dissertations. 2007

"APA"; Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010 (Second Printing)

"MLA"; MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 2008

I recommend against using a style guide for a specific publication or a single organization (such as the New York Times, Microsoft, or Yahoo!). I have little doubt that there is a guide for authors for the Journal of xxxx that has not yet made the change shown in major style guides. I tried initially to get a sampling of these for Sentence spacing in language and style guides before I realized that there are untold thousands of these out there in the U.S., the U.K., and in the English-speaking world. Most simply refer to comprehensive style guides such as the above.

Next, apart from the Oxford Style Guide, all of the above are listed in the links that I provided in the "Most style guides" thread where secondary sources listed examples of style guides in the context of the statement "most style guides". Including the Oxford Style Guide would be important to adhere to WP:WORLDVIEW, IMO.

Finally, there are a few nuances in the above, but I recommend that a Wikilink simply be provided to Sentence spacing in language and style guides in the note. For example, the APA has gone back and forth in the past year on its stance. The vacillations and the final position are laid out at that article. The APA should be included though (IMO) because it's important to a lot of U.S. writers. There are other nuances also, but I think it's best to keep the note simple.

If no one has recommended changes to the thoughts above, I can make the change in the next 24-48 hours. Or, of course, another editor can certainly do so. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the note proposed by Ruhrfisch. A couple of comments:

• I didn't list any exceptions. The only major exceptions/caveats are those that provide leeway for double sentence spacing in draft works. This could be added to the note; however, I provided a Wikilink to Sentence spacing in language and style guides, which contains all the relevant caveats.
• I added the note to the first instance of "most style guides" in the endnote itself. This departs from Ruhrfisch's recommendation to use a note after the article and before the list of citations, which would be referred to for every use of "most style guides" within the article. I went with consistency (there are already text notes in the endnotes). However, I have absolutely no objection if someone would like to take the style guide examples I listed in endnote 20 and transfer it to a "note" as Ruhrfisch described. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me - thanks. Is there any reason why the guides themselves are not wikilinked? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Would you recommend that they be Wikilinked to their respective Wikipedia article, or to the "Sentence spacing in language and style guides" section in which they reside? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I dislike surprise links, so I would link each guide to its own article, and perhaps add a note to see the other article for more details. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Chuckle. Just saw that. I changed the links to route to the main article on the respective style guides. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad references

I am puzzled by the references in the following paragraph (beginning the section "Style guides"): "By the 1980s, the United Kingdom's Hart's Rules (1983)..."

--the citation is to "Hart 1983," but Hart 1983 does not appear in the list of references.

"...and the United States' Chicago Manual of Style (1969) had shifted to single sentence spacing."

--I am looking at my 1969 copy of the so-called "Chicago Manual of Style" (The actual title is A Manual of Style), and the part referenced refers to spacing between words, not between sentences. The examples of manuscripts (e.g., page 41), show double spacing after periods.

I revised this to put a "citation needed" after the Hart reference (when the citation is added, the editor should check whether this is a reference to spacing in manuscript or print form.) I revised the Chicago reference to correct the actual name of the manual, and to state what is actually in the 1969 edition. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"obsolete" vs " shifted back away from double sentence spacing."

In regard to recent changes/reversions, I would not argue that the sentence cannot be improved: To say that double spacing became obsolete is, in my opinion, less POV and more accurate than "shifted back away from double sentence spacing," since the introduction of computers more closely bound the original document as entered to the typesetter. The sources say that double spacing became unnecessary with the widespread use of proportional fonts in advance typewriters and computers. People still use double spacing, but it appears to be a matter of personal preference based on what one is accustomed to, rather than a useful method of typing. It no longer serves it's original purpose, and it thus obsolete, and that, I think accurately reflects the sources I've consulted. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's simply false to say it's obsolete. It's used in lots of cases. The very most recent book I bought uses it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that we follow sources, not what we know, I have to ask, how can you be sure? You cannot tell from the printed page. Generally typesetters use variable sized spaces between words and punctuation to make text flow well. That's why double spacing after a full stop is obsolete, it messes up the typesetter when running a doc out to the press, since sometimes the second space wraps to the new line, making a small indent. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's double exactly is hard to tell. The fact that there is more space between sentences, than there is between words in a sentence, is easy to tell. Sure, in one line you could be fooled, but not in a large piece of text.

It is not obsolete, because it still serves the purpose of distinguishing periods that end sentences from periods that mark abbreviations. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you may be missing the point. The issue at hand is the wording of the sentence. You're addressing the question as to whether hitting the space bar twice after a full stop is still standard practice or if it is now obsolete. It is, most assuredly, the latter. In the days of typewriters, it was standard practice to hit the space bar twice after a full stop because it was believed to improve readability of non-proportional text (although that is disputed by some). Nowadays, we mostly use computers, print in a proportional font, and hitting the space bar twice is discouraged, because it makes it harder for the typesetting to print the document. When using a proportional font, computers control the width of spaces dynamically, especially in full justification. Computer based typesetters do the same. If you hit the space bar twice, it's harder for the computer to do the micro-spacing, and as I've said, sometime you get that second space wrapped to the next line. I'm not a reliable source, but I worked in a print/conversion lab for many years, and much of the work was helping users print out dissertations. Most folks in those days did use two spaces after a full stop, and it looked good on the screen, but when you printed the formatting would go wonky. So the first thing we would do is replace ".-space-space" with ".-space". I would bet you several beers that in the doc that the book you're holding was printer, there just one space after the full stops, and that the computer ran the print job made those spaces wider. That or the fellow that ran the job did a lot of cussin' and fussin'. Just saying. If you read the text surrounding the phrase we're talking about, you'll see what I mean. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is the sentence in question really just about what people do on the keyboard?? That seems too trivial to mention. I thought it was about how the text actually gets typeset. There are plenty of publications where the typesetting has more space between sentences than between words. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeap, that's it. And you'll note that in most publications, the space between words and letters is variable, especially when the text is fully justified, so as to prevent visual oddities such as "rivers" of white space. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think any reference to what people do on the keyboard should just be removed. How do you propose to verify it? --Trovatore (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What's verified is that modern manuals of style dictate use of a single space, see the references in the article. Of course people still do it, but many people continue in obsolete actions (for example, if I do not soon find a source for the old style double edge safety razor blades, which are apparently obsolete since I cannot find any for sale in the local market, I will have to go back to my straight razor, also obsolete, since I cannot abide electric shavers or those disposal multiblade razors that dig out a rectangle when you nick yourself). What is at issue is whether we should say that use of a double space is "obsolete" or say that is has "shifted back away from double sentence spacing." I prefer the former, as I believe it is more accurate in following sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, are we talking about what gets typeset, or are we talking about what people do on the keyboard? Style manuals don't tell you how to type on the keyboard; that's for typing class. As far as what gets typeset, the use of extra space between sentences is not obsolete in practice, no matter what some manual might say. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Style manuals do discuss keyboarding. If you'd like an example, I can give you some. The Chicago Manual of Style is one example. However, I didn't read the above that closely. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• See, for example, the 15th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, "Keyboarding: General Instructions. A single character space, not two spaces, should be left after periods at the ends of sentences (both in manuscript and in final, published form) and after colons" (p. 61). --Airborne84 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why there's discussion about the "truth" regarding double sentence spacing being obsolete. I think all of the editors here are experienced, so we all know Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. So, I won't engage in that discussion.

There is some rationale to discussion of the term "obsolete" in regard to POV. I'll quote Rurhfisch above: "According to WP:NPOV, section 2.8 (Words to watch) 'Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).'" The word "obsolete" is appropriate if it is used or implied (for us to paraphrase) by a noteworthy source. I list these sources (noted in the article) below:

David Jury "why do so many people continue to use the primitive (and entirely obsolete) conventions of the typist?" (this is in reference to double sentence spacing, among others)

James Felici. "The typewriter tradition of separating sentences with two word spaces after a period has no place in typesetting. The custom began because the characters of monospaced typefaces used on typewriters were so wide and so open that a single word space—one the same width as a character, including the period—was not wide enough to create a sufficient space between sentences."

Robert Bringhurst. "In the nineteenth century, which was a dark and inflationary age in typography and type design, many compositors were encouraged to stuff extra spaces between sentences. Generations of twentieth-century typists were then taught to do the same, by hitting the spacebar twice after every period. Your typing as well as your typesetting will benefit from unlearning this quaint Victorian habit."

Walsh. "Are you still putting two spaces after periods, exclamation points, question marks and colons? You shouldn't be. Some places are still clinging to this typewriter convention, no doubt, but as a standard operating procedure it went out with the IBM Selectric."

Williams. "Because all characters are monospaced, the tradition was to type two spaces after periods to separate sentences. But most of the fonts you'll use on your Mac are proportional; that is, the characters each take up a proportional amount of space-a typical letter I takes up about one-fifth the space of the letter m. So you no longer need extra spaces to separate the sentences."

(added) Mignon Fogarty. (after discussion of proportional fonts) "Typewriting used monospace fonts and needed two spaces. Now that most writing is done on computers it is no longer necessary to type two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence."

Jury uses the word "obsolete". The others don't describe the "movement away" from double sentence spacing, they describe why it is no longer relevant—or obsolete. Thus, the wording "move away from double sentence spacing" is not a good replacement for what these sources state.

The word "obsolescent" was used for a couple of months before someone changed it back to "obsolete." Both are appropriate.

Also, POV claims go against the fact that this article was approved as a Featured Article with the word "obsolete" in the sentence. An FA cannot be POV; that is one of the requirements. Thus, a consensus of experienced Wikipedia editors already found it NPOV.

Finally, please refer to the thread above about the word "foolish" in the article. Just because some people object to certain words or wording doesn't mean it's not useful to some people. If multiple reliable sources use those words, and it describes a useful concept in a Wikipedia article, it can be included—and it does not necessarily violate WP:NPOV by itself. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I read through the above. Trovadore, "obsolete" does not necessarily mean "no longer used". It can simply mean that it is no longer needed or no longer relevant. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

But it is not obsolete in that sense either. It is relevant, as I said, to distinguish periods that end sentences from periods that mark abbreviations. This is done in practice, particularly in papers that are typeset in TeX or LaTeX, which automatically puts extra space after periods unless you disable it with \frenchspacing; for this reason, users are taught to put a hard space (or sometimes non-breaking space) after abbreviations, which disables the extra space. --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is your opinion. We can't use that in the article. You might ask David Jury (a noted typographer) why he called it obsolete. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is verifiable that the convention is in active use. Jury's opinion should be attributed to him by name. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, "obsolete" does not necessarily mean "no longer used". Please read through the other sources above also; they support Jury's wording. I could probably dig up another dozen or so. I just think that it's redundant after a certain point. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore, if I'm understanding you correctly, and forgive me if I am not, you're actually undermining your point. LaTex has the option of adding an additional space for the user, the user doesn't type two spaces after a full stop, so what you're describing is a typesetter's option in the software, and in accordance with manuals of style, the user typing two spaces after a full stop is obsolete, even in LaTex. But Airborne is correct, you'd have to bring a reliable source to bear on this point. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, we seem to be wandering back and forth between what the user does on the keyboard and what actually gets typeset. I think it's kind of silly to spend any time on what the user does on the keyboard, and I had left off that discussion; the substance is in what gets typeset. The adding of additional space (not a full additional space, usually, but some additional space) is the default, although it can be turned off.

Reliable sources should be The TeXbook and The LaTeX Companion, neither of which, unfortunately, I can put my hands on right at the moment. --Trovatore (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

IRT the title of this thread, some of the sources that I've listed above explicitly state keyboarding or typeset material. Some don't explicitly state that. Trying to interpret if they are referring to something specific is not our job. They are talking about sentence spacing being obsolete. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

River effect image

I suppose a case could be made that the river effect image violates WP:OR. I disagree for a few reasons:

• Before now, I didn't think it likely to be challenged. The edit summary on the good faith edit removing it stated that there are obvious rivers in the text. So there doesn't seem to be an issue that it doesn't describe the river effect. If there's a fine line to be drawn, I would err on the side of "it makes Wikipedia better".
• There are many images similar to these in manuals and articles on typography (see, for example, the references that I put in the river effect article). Since displaying images from those books/refs has copyright issues, I thought it better to simply make an image that illustrates the same concept. In that sense, the visual depiction of the river effect related to double sentence spacing isn't WP:OR. Perhaps the question is how best to translate that concept, visually described in multiple reliable references, to this article.

I think the image is fine, but I welcome further discussion or ideas for a better image. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The image seems to be WP:OR. Can you instead post a link to an image showing the same effect?

The font seems to be right-justified Courier. This is an odd choice; it's clearly a typewriter font, but "rivers" are typically discussed in the context of print, not typescript.

Such an image might be more usefully put into the "River (typography)" article, illustrating how if you right-justify a monspaced font, there's no way to get around the fact that it will be ugly. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to link it to an image without running afoul of copyright issues. There are relevant images on some webpages, but they are from sources that I'm not sure will be fitting (I can check again). What about adding a note to the image and referring readers to one of the print sources that use similar images? That would show that the concept is not WP:OR. The image is just a graphic representation of that concept from multiple reliable sources. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-made images are explicitly allowed and do not violate WP:OR - users here take photographs and make maps and diagrams all the time. This is similar to copyrighted images I have seen. Please see the Original images section at WP:OR, which says in part Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

standards for manuscript and standards for printing.

It is a significant point that there is historically a difference between standards for manuscripts (i.e., typewriting standards) and standards for printing (i.e., typesetting). I'm sorry that you don't like this sentence, but it is useful to clarify the discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I returned this sentence to its original condition: "With the introduction of proportional fonts in computers, the convention for sentences became obsolete."

An edit was made to modify it earlier. I reverted it and initiatied discussion on the talk page. IAW WP:BRD, discussion now follows until a consensus is achieved. Continued back and forth will just lead to accusations of edit warring. We're all reasonable editors here I am sure, so there's no need for that.

Finally, I don't want to imply that I am not willing to make modifications to the article. I simply want to discuss it IAW policies. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realized that there was already a discussion on this point. Reading that discussion, I see no consensus on keeping the wording "obsolete." I do see that a single reference (Jury) uses that word, and that reference is not a style manual: David Jury is expressing an opinion. There's nothing wrong with quoting an opinion, but it should be sourced and labeled as such. The wording you inserted-- without the clarification "according to David Jury"-- is a clear NPOV violation. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The consensus already existed when the sentence was added and not disputed. According to WP:Consensus, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." Thus, if someone wishes a disputed change, a new consensus must be achieved.

As far as the word "obsolete", I believe that the word adequately paraphrases all of the sources listed (as noted above). There also seems to be some agreement for this. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss first

I undid three edits just now that degraded a WP:FA. Inserting the one sentence paragraph "There is a historical difference between standards for manuscripts (i.e., typewriting standards) and standards for printing (i.e., typesetting)." into the lead is not good for several reasons. First off, unlike the rest of the lead and rest of the article, it is unsourced. Second, the lead is a summary of the whole article and not the place for new and unique statements. Third, one sentence paragraphs interrupt the flow and are almost never found in FAs.

Please note I am not disagreeing with the statement per se, just its placement, lack of references, and the manner in which it has been inserted. Please discuss how best to incorporate this into the article (with reliable sources, of course). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. For example, the word "manuscript" appears 15 times in the article, so it's not ignored. It's not Wikilinked, so perhaps Wikilinking the first instance in the lede will suffice. If the editors here think it's necessary to make this distinction in the text, it can likely be done within a sentence or by adding a short sentence in the text, in a manner commensurate with an FA. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that if you do not disagree with the content of the sentence, but do disagree with where it is placed, the correct solution would be to move it to a different place, not to delete it. Likewise, if you think it's unsourced, there is a "source" tag that can be appended. Instead, however, the response here seems to be that your first action is to delete all changes to the article, rather than try to make them better.

I am puzzled by the contradiction between the two comments. Ruhrfisch states that mentioning the difference between manuscript convention and typesetting convention is wrong because it is "new and unique statements" instead of summarizing something later in the article. Airborne84 states, on the other hand, "the word "manuscript" appears 15 times in the article, so it's not ignored." Which is the problem here? Is the problem that it is "new and unique," or is the problem that it "appears 15 times in the article" (and hence stating it explicitly is redundant)?

Furthermore, the changes being made are factually incorrect. It is simply not correct that the 1969 Manual of Style "shows em spacing after sentences in the manuscript example (page 41)." The example is a monospaced font (Courier); monospaced fonts do not have a distinct em and en spaces; all spaces are the same width. The example shows two spaces (not "em spacing"-- em spacing is not two spaces) after punctuation. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the article must adhere to the summary style—not going into unnecessary detail—to be an FA. Integrating these nuances into the article is unnecessary. What we need to communicate to the reader is that somewhere between 1906 and 2003, the Chicago Manual of Style changed from exaggerated spacing between sentences to single sentence spacing. Detailing typeset/manuscript nuances during the transition adds unnecessary verbiosity, IMO.

I think that the text as it reads is accepable. If a consensus of editors think a change is necessary, a possible change is changing the following:

• "The 1969 edition of the Chicago Manual of Style used em spaces between sentences in its text."
• "Early editions of the Chicago Manual of Style used em spacing in its text."

The drawback to this is that readers then don't know when the change occurred.

I may not be addressing Geoffrey.landis's issue though. If the issue is simply that a distinction should be made between typeset and manuscript material, that is already in a note in this section of the article. That suffices for me, although other editors are welcome to weigh in.--Airborne84 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Again I'm totally baffled. In the post starting this section it was said that the problem (or one of the problems) was that the sentence introduced material that was "new and unique" and therefore inappropriate in the lede. Here, I see "If the issue is simply that a distinction should be made between typeset and manuscript material, that is already in a note in this section of the article." Which? Either it's new and unique, or it's already there, but not both. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed Ruhrfisch's note regarding the added statement as to "its placement, lack of references, and the manner in which it has been inserted."

I'd also invite you to review the peer review for this article and its three featured article candidate pages. Unfortunately, we have editors come here and make changes that run counter to the requirements that this article had to meet to become a Featured Article. If you plan to contribute significantly to the article (and it seems that you do), it would be worthwhile for you to review them. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"You have not addressed Ruhrfisch's note regarding the added statement as to "its placement, lack of references, and the manner in which it has been inserted."":

I have been working on that. Per request, I have placed in a different location and added references. I have not, however addressed "the manner in which it has been inserted." As far as I am aware, the "manner" in which Wikipedia is edited is, you edit it. I have now done so.

I see that there are now a large number of added comments. However, I am out of time at the moment. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Style Guides (Typewriting)

Geoffrey.landis added this new section. While I'm happy to see people interested in improving the article, I don't believe this is an improvement. There are multiple issues within the section (e.g., I'm not sure why the following statment is relevant to Style Guides (typewriting) "As of 2010, it is reported by Strizver that the double-space typewriter convention is still being taught widely in school."). However, I think the entire section is unnecessary:

1. Most of it belongs in the History of sentence spacing article. The style guide section shuld only be a summary of that section.

2. Much of the material in the added section already exists in the sentence spacing article, albeit in summarized form (summary style) Two quotes are simply repeated from the article itself (redundant) and much of the other material is taken from the notes of the article.

3. Much of the material from the Gregg reference manual (the final paragraph in the new section) was in my initial version of the article when I first put it up as a Featured Article Candidate. I was told by the reviewers that it was too much information. Thus, I split the material into the Sentence spacing in language and style guides article. Reintroducing the material begins to drop the article from Featured Article quality, if it doesn't do so outright.

I understand that Geoffrey.landis wants some more caveats and material added into the article. If the editors here agree to recommendations, I don't see why it can't be done. I do not believe that this is the way to do it. I welcome further discussion. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I took Geoffrey.landis' added section and summarized it back into the "style guides" section. A look at the early FAC pages for this article (see top of talk page) will show why. It was going to erode or simply violate FAC criterion 4 in that it went into unnecessary detail and didn't use the summary style.

Since no one else weighed in against the points that Geoffrey.landis brought up, I summarized the points that he wanted brought out into the first two paragraphs of the style guides section.

The Gregg Reference Manual, while summarized in the lede with "with a few [style guides]...permitting double spacing in draft manuscripts and for specific circumstances based on personal preference" (emphasis added), was not summarized in the style guides section. It should have been, and Geoffrey.landis pointed that out. It is summarized in that section now. Other editors can look to see if I was too verbose in doing so.

While making the changes, I removed the neutrality tag from the controversy section because Geoffrey.landis did not state why the listed sources did not adequately convey the material in that sentence. The neutrality tag remains in the lede and in another tag, so the resolution of those tags will undoubtedly clear up POV concerns regardless.

The changes should address the material that Geoffrey.landis wanted to see added while still adhering to Featured Article Criteria. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass revert

Geoffrey.landis decided to revert my multiple edits that brought the article back in line with Featured Article Criteria, while still including the material he wanted to see in the article.

I don't feel like getting into an edit war, and I am growing tired of this as well. If other editors have opinions on this matter, feel free to weigh in or revert. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Exit stage left

Although it pains me to do so right now, I must "turn off" Wikipedia for some time—measured in months. My interest in this topic has not flagged, but various other projects and circumstances are more pressing right now. I'll leave some thoughts for the editors here.

• Please check your biases at the door, on both sides. We all have them.
• WP:BRD is not as useful for a contentious, Featured Article as it is for a stub, start class or B-class article on Wikipedia. As numerous editors here have stated, it is better to discuss contentious changes here at the talk page before making them.
• No one editor should make sweeping changes to a contentious, Featured Article. By its very nature, its status will likely be maintained by making changes only through a consensus of editors.
• If you're planning on making a change to a passage that cites reliable sources—and you have not seen those sources—please check them before changing wording. You might put words in the mouths of the sources that they are not stating.
• If you want to contribute here, you will do Wikipedia readers a disservice by not reading the peer review and three featured article candidate pages for this article. Otherwise you may make edits that prevented this article from becoming an FA in the first place.
• That same disservice will be done by not keeping the Featured Article Criteria in mind when making edits.

I suspect that I'm the only one on the planet with all the references on hand, so if there is a need to determine what one or more says, feel free to e-mail me on my user page. I won't be checking Wikipedia for a while, but I'll be happy to provide source info if needed.

Happy editing! --Airborne84 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What a shame, just when I had a little time to return to discussing this article. I'm going to add some comments anyway and hope you can address them when you come back, or others can address them. Good luck with your other projects! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)