Talk:Sentence spacing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sentence spacing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sentence spacing is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 4, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 11, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
April 12, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 27, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
May 27, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 15, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 22, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that French spacing, the typographical practice of adding two (rather than one) spaces after a full stop, is a result of the monospaced fonts used by typewriters?
Current status: Featured article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sentence spacing was copied or moved into History of sentence spacing with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

faq page

Frequently asked questions (see also: Sentence Spacing FAQ)

Q: Why is this article restricted to "languages using a Latin-derived alphabet"?

A: Double sentence spacing (on typewriters) was primarily used in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (English). Because traditional spacing and French spacing is relevant to the topic, the article cannot be limited to "Sentence spacing in English." However, including languages based on Sanscrit, Cyrillic, Cuniform, Hieroglyphics, Chinese, and Japanese characters (among others), adds little to the article.

Q: Why is the "introduction of movable-type printing" mentioned in the lede?

A: This excludes the topic of sentence spacing in handwriting.

Q: There is no single authority for the English language, so why is any of this relevant?

A: There is no single authority for the English language. However, there are commonly accepted writing conventions in national varieties of English (e.g., American and British English). For example, it is conventional in written English to capitalize the first word of every sentence; end sentences with a period, question mark, or exclamation mark; use "quotation marks" instead of «guillemets», indent paragraphs or separate them with vertical space, etc. Not adhering to commonly accepted conventions can make written products look unfamiliar to the average reader. Conventions can be determined by using primary source reference works, as well as determining what is common usage, which can change over time.

Q: Why did early professional typesetters use exaggerated spacing (em spaces) between sentences? What led them to believe that was the best way to set type?

A: There doesn't seem to be a good answer to this in published literature. Modern typographers only speculate about the rationale. If you can find the answer, please add it to the article.

Q: What is the reason for the shift away from double sentence spacing in professionally published works in the early 20th century and in style guides in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?

A: There doesn't seem to be a good answer to this in published literature. If you can find the answer, please add it to the article.

Q: Why does this article use terms like French and English spacing while acknowledging that they are confusing because they are not used consistently?

A: This article simply reports what sources say about the topic. In this case, the sources themselves are contradictory. But coverage of these terms is necessary for completeness according to Featured Article criterion 1.b.

Q: Why isn't typesetting time and cost mentioned, when it may have been a major factor in the modern transition from wider spacing to word spacing?

A: Editors here have not found reliable, published sources that comment on this potential factor. If you can find the answer, please add it to the article.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

French spacing Expansion dispute

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Style guide#United Kingdom|''Oxford Style Manual'']] The anchor (#United Kingdom) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Main Reason Commonly Given for Double Spacing Is Not Mentioned[edit]

It's to prevent confusion with internal abbreviations where the dot is to be followed by a single space, for example "Mr." or "Dr.", especially because those very common abbreviations are almost always followed by a capital letter. This confusion is mentioned in the section on how computers deal with the distinction but should also be featured in the "Controversy" and "Effects on Readability and Legibility" sections. 68.196.3.202 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)captcrisis[reply]

questioning the correctness of the "en quad" being the standard sentence space[edit]

The "en space" or "en quad" is in my recollection the standard word space, and the "em space" or "em quad" is the typical sentence space, which is backwards from the page text. Can someone corroborate or rebut this? 41.80.175.9 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

A few sentences are not sourced. And the "Controversy" section may be removed and its content moved elsewhere? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section seems fine to me[edit]

There's a tag on the controversy section saying the negative information should be integrated into the rest of the article, but it seems to me it does a fine job of covering the controversy neutrally. I think the tag should be removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I assume the tag was added due to WP:CRIT, but I don't see a better way to handle it here. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it; if anyone thinks it should stay we can discuss it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag should stay @Mike Christie. This section's content should probably be moved elsewhere:

The first paragraph with a 2009 quote about the current controversy should probably be moved to the History section, "Transition to single spacing". And/or the lede.
The second paragraph seems to be a mixed of pros and cons, starting with the wonderful sentence: "Many people are opposed to single sentence spacing for various reasons." 🤔 "Others claim that additional space between sentences improves the aesthetics or readability of text." is already covered by the following section "Effects on readability and legibility".
The third paragraph is similar. Looks like OR to me. It is partially sourced using two blog posts: [1] and [2].
The last paragraph (and part of the third one: "Some sources now state it is acceptable for monospaced fonts to be single-spaced today,[81] although other references continue to specify double spacing for monospaced fonts.") about style guides recommendations should be moved to... "Style and language guides" (if not already there). It is also sourced using a blog post [3].

A455bcd9 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't revert if you made those changes, and I agree the blog posts should go. One of those two appears to have been introduced since the article was promoted. Perhaps the other is from academics and was considered to be OK for that reason? I can't see any evidence of that if so, so I agree it should go. The promoted version is here, and if we're going to edit it or move bits of it I think it's worth checking to see what other differences there are since later edits may not have received as much scrutiny as the paragraph in the originally promoted article. However, the topic really is controversial (see this for evidence in popular culture), and I think readers may actually want to read a section summarizing the controversy, so I don't think it's harmful so long as the section phrases things neutrally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that Hallahan and Lloyd are (or were) professors at the University of Virginia Learning Disabilities Research Institute. This doesn't make them subject matter experts on typography. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to check. What do you think @CWenger? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to add about the content of the section. I just don't think the tag is necessary because WP:CRIT is most concerned about BLPs, and this topic is inherently controversial. The content could conceivably be distributed throughout the article instead, but I don't think it's necessary for neutrality. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]