Talk:Sentence spacing/Archive 1

Citing Chicago and AP

The lede says this: “There is no one correct answer according to the Chicago Manual of Style…,” but I can’t find where the manual says that. In the 15th edition, there are two entries in the index for “spacing, between sentences.” One is §2.12 (under the heading “Keyboarding: General Instructions”):

Line spacing and word spacing. … 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. …

The other is §6.11 (under the heading “Typographic and Aesthetic Considerations”):

Space between sentences. In typeset matter, one space, not two (in other words, a regular word space), follows any mark of muctuation that ends a sentence, whether a period, a colon, a question mark, and exclamation point, or closing quotation marks.

Could someone please provide a more specific reference for the claim that Chicago doesn’t pick sides? Otherwise I’ll change the article to indicate that Chicago and AP concur. --Rob Kennedy 07:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This has bothered me for awhile, too. I went to the CMOS website and found this link [1] which seem to confirm your citations from the print manual. I'm also going to remove the 'authority' subclause from lede. Hwonder talk contribs 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

originated with typewriters claim isn't correct

We currently claim that double spaces after periods originated with typewriters, citing a random website as evidence. This isn't really a reliable source, and furthermore isn't correct—double-spacing after periods was widespread prior to the invention of the typewriter (here is an article in Dynamic Graphics magazine mentioning that it was "common in books before the 19th century", though a still-more-reliable source than that would be preferable). --Delirium 22:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct in essence. The confusion arises from the recent Americanisation reversing the meaning of French spacing, which was not mentioned in the article. Although the claim re Typewriter Origin of double-spacing (as opposed to em-spacing) is correct, essentially all the other typographic history and style claims are post-hoc reality-editing rationalizations of a relatively recent style preference. I call this sort of revisionism "Justifiction".

In particular, em-spaced ("double-spaced") sentences preceded typewriters by several hundred years. Your awareness of the earlier typography and consequently of the logical discrepancy re the typewriter/double-space assertion indicates you have read or studied far more widely than most contributors on this topic, here and elsewhere.

I've done a major overhaul of the article. References passim. Possibly overkill, but I profoundly object to revisionism. Retcons are for comicbooks, not for real life.

Saltation (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the previous version lifted the bulk of its material verbatim from the Late Night Engineer's post on the same topic. But did so without attribution or any indication of permission to do so. Saltation (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, the excellent entry on French Spacing prompted me to get a login for Wikipedia--terrific work that really demonstrates the value of Wikipedia. This might seem like a nuisance topic (spacing after a period), but the history of why people are choosing one convention over the other is absolutely fascinating.

Regardless, I came across an interesting example that fairly well refutes double-spacing being brought about by monospace typewriters: The United States Declaration of Independence. An image is available here at the Library of Congress: [2]. Note that extra spacing occurs after periods and after commas. When you consider the importance of this document to the authors, I can't imagine that any compromises would be made in the typesetting. Notice that it is full-justified as well. Mphtower (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent find, Mphtower. I have incorporated it in the main article. Many thanks. Saltation (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The link that's now in the article points to the wikipedia article on The American Declaration of Independence. However, that article has like five pictures of the DofI, some hand written, some printed (and none of them seems to be the same as the www.loc.gov link above). So it's unclear which picture the link in the article is pointing to--I certainly don't know! Mcswell (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

the opening sucks

Just why it winds through typing, typesetting and typing, in that order, is unclear. The distinction between the two may be unclear to many readers, too (and whether "typographical" applies to both).

What the hell does this mean? "French spacing always means single-spacing of sentences, semicolons, and colons, but with additional spacings between most punctuation and text".

Query whether this AmEng-vs-other-varieties is true. Where are the references?

The lead should stand alone as comprehensible. Currently, it confuses.

"French spacing" is a French and English typographical term with three meanings:

1. in Typing: the standard French typist's approximation (with single-width spaces) of the spacing rules of traditional typesetting.
2. in Typesetting: a relatively recent synonym for traditional typographic spacing rules: the traditional typesetting spacing rules standardized for several centuries but since the 60s, following extreme commercial pressure on English-language typographers, only preserved in common use by French typesetting.
3. in Typing: in an Americanization dating to the mid-90s, the standard English typists' approximation (with single-width spaces) of traditional typesetting's spacing rules.

In common usage, French spacing refers to one of the typists' approximations:

1. In America today, French spacing often means double-spacing of sentences, semicolons, and colons.
2. In all other English-speaking countries, in all French-speaking countries, and in America before the mid-90s, French spacing always means single-spacing of sentences, semicolons, and colons, but with additional spacings between most punctuation and text.

Tony (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what it's saying.Petero9 (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra invisible data at top

What's up with the commented list of links at the top of the article? I moved it to the bottom (along with the bot settings) but they were moved back. Note that they're pushing the first line of the article down quite a bit. —Werson (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Both Comments are meta-important to the article. The bot-protection is necessary to avoid a current AWB problem which mangles the typographic space examples, and the standard location for these items is at the top of the article, particularly when they're (hopefully) temporary. The Referential Integrity warning explains itself and, again, needs to be at the top of the article, by definition. Warnings are useless if no one is aware of them. "Beware of the Leopard"

"BE CAREFUL MAKING STRUCTURAL CHANGES. YOU MAY NEED TO CHANGE OTHER ARTICLES TO MATCH. This article covers a "hot" topic for many designers and typographers, and is linked to and deep-linked to from many articles -- be sure to review ALL their usages if you make any structural changes. Please be thorough"

They do not push down the first line of the article at all.* They are comments. They are invisible.

If you're worried about someone choosing to edit the article's code then being unable to cope with the concept of scrolling down slightly more than they would normally have to to find the text they want to change, then I suggest you might be better off worrying about the quality of edits that level of intellect would make. Saltation (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• [EDIT: I beg your pardon; there was one spurious blank line moving the article down one line — now deleted]

"If you're worried about someone choosing to edit the article's code then being unable to cope with the concept of scrolling down slightly more than they would normally have to to find the text they want to change, then I suggest you might be better off worrying about the quality of edits that level of intellect would make."

Calm down, I didn't say any of that. All I said was a) what is the purpose of it?, and b) it's creating excess whitespace. You addressed both, so thanks. I have to say, I think the link list pretty superfluous, since every article has this problem, and deep links should always be checked. But it's not my article so I'll be on my way. —Werson (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

When you said "they're pushing the first line of the article down quite a bit" I assumed you were talking about where they're pushing the first line of the article down quite a bit. A browser/MediaWiki bug with Mac copypaste had inserted only one line above the article, so it seemed you were talking about the code not the article. My apologies for apparently misunderstanding you. Saltation (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not introduce Personal Politics into this article

One editor appears to believe "profit" is a pejorative term rather than a descriptive term with a very specific meaning. And has deleted all reference to it.
Again.
The resulting text was at best misleading and at worst false. Amusingly, despite this highly POV approach (believing that profit is never fair ("economic rent") therefore believing use of the word implies a negative connotation), the previously value-neutral text was repeatedly labelled POV, implying the changes were NPOV. They were not. They were assertions of a preferred POV.
Similarly, use of the standard print-industry term "low end" was deleted, and, again amusingly, use of the standard print-industry term "high end" was not. These asymmetric changes were also impliedly labelled NPOV. They were not. They were assertions of a preferred POV.
Similarly, and less important but certainly indicative of the problem, and again amusingly, the editor apparently believes "regression" is pejorative rather than a very concise value-neutral summary of part of a change process. Either that, or the editor had forgotten the earlier parts of the article. Assuming the editor was not negligent, this change too was an assertion of a preferred POV.

Assuming that an editor or a reader must dislike a fact does not invalidate a fact.
Imputing non-existent elitism into standard technical terms does not mean they suddenly acquire that meaning.*
Personal POVs have no place in an encyclopedia.
Deleting encyclopaedic information reduces the usefulness of an article.

* The reverse elitist-meaning is true, amusingly, in typography. As very clearly described in the article, an elitist element among typographers is seeking to enforce low-end spacing practice, not high-end. This has been widespread in that element for nearly 20 years but dates back at least to Dowding's landmark attempts in the 1950s (again: as described in the article). From a normal reader's perspective, "high-end" and "low-end" are merely standard terms for particular areas of the industry. From an elitist's perspective, "high-end" would be read as pejorative and "low-end" as aspirational. The reverse is true for an anti-elitist. Neither elitism nor anti-elitism is NPOV.

To be clear: high-end typography is now considered low-class by elitists (the reverse was true in the 19th Century); low-end typography is now considered high-class by elitists.

More importantly, both terms have a long history of being used in a strictly technical sense without elitist or anti-elitist connotations.

Insisting they be read with elitist or anti-elitist connotations implies POV.

Technical terms are technical terms — they stand in their own right. Possibly their inventors and their industry could have chosen better ones. However, it is not Wikipedia's mission to change the world but to summarise the world using the world's own words.

And when describing a motivation for a fundamental and profound change in a global industry and its memes, describing that motivation is appropriate. Ignoring Agency theory is a fundamental error.

This article has been carefully written and proofread by a number of professional typographers and typesetters to maintain neutral phrasing throughout while still communicating a maximum of information as concisely as possible. Please do not muddle the concept of description with that of normative political rhetoric.
Please do not introduce politics into this article.
Saltation (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Assuming good faith is a fundamental part of wikiquette and is expected of all editors. I have no desire to insert politics into this article.

First, I stand by my contention that the edits I made helped this article move to a NPOV. If more non-NPOV wording remains, please remove it as well. The word "regression", while having a precise dictionary meaning, connotes movement from a desired state to a less desired state. Therefore I (and another editor before me) changed it to the neutral and still factually accurate "changed". (Compare to the discussion in WP:AVOID contrasting the word "say" versus the words "noted" and "reported" for a discussion of implicit bias. While it may be technically true that someone "reports" something, the word imparts the bias that the person is also correct. Similarly, while it may technically be true that something "regressed", the word imparts the bias that it also got worse.) As for "profit" and "profit-driven", all business entities are profit-driven, so specific emphasis of this fact implies to the reader that their actions are therefore less-than-honorable (i.e., that they value money over art or user concerns). It is not our place to judge motivations, merely to report them in an encyclopedic manner — and this is in fact done, by pointing out that cost was indeed a driving factor. The parenthetical "or perhaps profit" is particularly inappropriate, as its author means it to be read dripping with derision, which is completely unencyclopedic. Moreover, the terms "high end" and "low end", while they may be standard terms in the industry, carry with them specific connotations to the average reader (who are, after all, who we write for), either readings of which are POV, and thus also inappropriate. We cannot make words have only the meanings we wish, we can only deal with them as they are.

Second, you have also reverted my removal of extraneous embedded comments. Embedded comments are meant to be used for notes to future editors of the article, not for providing an editor's opinions about various matters discussed, or doubting the motivations of various quotations, et cetera. They certainly should not be used for passive-aggressive ridiculing of another well-meaning editor who requested a citation, whether such a citation was actually needed or not. Those comments should be removed and not inserted again. (Such passive-aggressiveness is also displayed above, this time towards me. Please, say what you mean. As the Zen of Python says, "explicit is better than implicit." This applies to more than just programming.)

Third, I find your statement that "this article has been carefully written and proofread by a number of professional typographers and typesetters to maintain neutral phrasing throughout" to be quite distressing, due to its implication that only professionals may have worthwhile contributions. Please remember that we do not own articles. I, for one, am grateful for your contributions to this article, and for the contributions you may have solicited from others, but remember that all articles can be improved in some way, and not just by professionals or by yourself. Indeed, sometimes an outsider's perspective is more helpful. Neutrality is not only a matter for professionals, it is a matter for all readers, and a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. — confusionball (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

>"Please remember to assume good faith."

I did. The first time.

The nature of your subsequent edits here and elsewhere decided me to make the problem clear now rather than wait till my normal third-time-petard. As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

>"First, I stand by my contention that the edits I made helped this article move to a NPOV. If more non-NPOV wording remains, please remove it as well."

This article has been thoroughly and rigorously checked for NPOV by people very aware of, and very supportive of, Wikipedia's goals and policies. What remains is neutral, and very carefully worded.

>"specific emphasis of [profit] implies to the reader that their actions are therefore less-than-honorable (i.e., that they value money over art or user concerns)"

I'm afraid you're just digging yourself deeper.

>"cost was indeed a driving factor."

I'm afraid you're just digging yourself deeper.

To be clear: you either haven't read the article properly or you don't understand people nor businesses. Most businesses are not charities: they do not seek to lower costs in order to lower prices, out of some sense of altruism. My references to Agency theory and Economic rent were not casual. Price-Cost=Profit. People's careers and sometimes incomes are tied to profit. Price is fundamentally decoupled from cost, as even a casual examination of the market will show. People only drop prices to (attempt to) maintain or improve profit. Radical changes to operations are almost never primarily driven by cost, but by the cost change's effect.

You appear to believe being explicit about the effect, and the motivation, is a bad thing.

In your own (albeit quoted) words: "explicit is better than implicit."

>"The parenthetical "or perhaps profit" is particularly inappropriate, as its author means it to be read dripping with derision, which is completely unencyclopedic."

You're not so much digging yourself deeper here, as screaming "Everything you were concerned about? I so MEANT that." then hurling yourself into the centre of the earth.

Incidentally, I wrote that sentence. I can assure you, I wrote it with a keen eye to NPOV ("Economic rent") and with a keen eye to compressing a paragraph into a handful of words: I neither intended your imputed implication, nor anything remotely like it, nor has any proofreader inferred same.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

It would be difficult to create a better example of the sheer dissonance between what is in the article and what you are implying into it.

>"Such passive-aggressiveness is also displayed above, this time towards me. Please, say what you mean."

Ah. I did actually.

And have again.

>"I find your statement that "this article has been carefully written and proofread by a number of professional typographers and typesetters to maintain neutral phrasing throughout" to be quite distressing, due to its implication that only professionals may have worthwhile contributions."

Again, you are implying vastly more into what was written than what was written. Talleyrand is frequently quoted (possibly apocryphally) as saying, on reading of a political opponent's death: "I wonder what he meant by that."

Please, do not introduce personal politics into simple statements of fact.

>"Indeed, sometimes an outsider's perspective is more helpful."

This is not an Insider-vs-Outsider thing. That's in your own mind only. This is a contribution thing.

Contributions have not been contested by virtue of being contributions -- you should have noted that other people's contributions have simply improved the article. You should also have noted that one of your own contributions has not merely improved the article but been actively extrapolated upon: your elegant pointing-up that the lead paragraphs inappropriately suggested currency instead of period-specificity. Everybody's first introduction to the topic now conforms to your personal contribution.

Please do not confuse distaste for crusades with dislike for contributions.

Saltation (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi there, I just want to let you guys know that I'm preparing an analysis and some recommendations to hopefully help resolve your dispute as objectively as possible. I should have it posted here in a few days. If anybody else has an opinion, feel free to post it here as well; fourth and fifth opinions can't hurt. : ) —Latiligence (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion — I think it's clear we've got two very passionate, intelligent, devoted, educated, and articulate editors here. That's a good thing. What's not a good thing is that both Saltation (talk · contribs) and Confusionball (talk · contribs) are veering into problematic territory, including article ownership behaviour and MPOV. Such is the strength of each of their convictions that s/he is right and the other is wrong that little enduring good can come from tiebreaker opinions handing a win to either over the other, as it seems. As difficult as it will likely be for both of them, it is probably best if they both have a nice cup of tea and a sit down and leave at least the currently contentious portions of this article alone for awhile. In the best case, it'll evolve, perhaps in a direction that hadn't occurred to either of these two editors, and the problem will be obviated. In the worst case, both of these editors will have had some time to gain some perspective on the relative unimportance of the issues over which they're quarrelling. In the meantime, I urge both editors to study and ponder this carefully. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opinion - Personally, I've always preferred this. Although this is right up there.

A Note - Point taken. Point very much, in fact, borne in mind in the first Discussion post here, and again in my second.

I can see what this could appear like to the quick visitor. A standard human conflict-resolution approach is to achieve consensus by averaging emotion.

Unfortunately for the normal reaction, in a case where facts are more important than social memes the less destructive approach is to resile to facts. Yes, this is guaranteed to upset one or the other by the asymmetric treatment of their emotion. But one person's personal implied constructions (in this case, demonstrably wrong in a key area, as above) aren't necessarily equiweighted with everyone else's simpler view of the words "as they are wrote". This article is already (like porcupines having sex: very carefully) describing a topic that is subject to a great deal of emotion derived from particular social groups' strivings to determine a particular result. Lifting that conflict out of the participants and into the article, even in part, is not helpful to the article. Indeed, it's contrary to Wikipedia's encyclopedic principles.

A core tenet of wikipedia is: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Saltation (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Response — I will not be drawn into a squabble you are evidently intent on having, except to take note for when it erupts into a full-blown edit war subject to the applicable repercussions. Your earlier post here on the talk page, replete with incivilities including sarcastic sotto voce parentheticals and dismissive "most amusingly" appraisals of another editor's position, demonstrates amply that you are very evidently not interested in neutrality on this topic. This latest reply to a requested third opinion, in which you carry on trying to justify your insistence that you're right, further highlights your apparent inability to edit neutrally. You asked for a third opinion, so please be advised that your persistent claims of rectitude and selective pretense of neutrality work efficiently against you, and your attempt to use unnecessarily recherché words in an apparent effort to demonstrate your superior intellect when challenged is unlikely to gain you much traction here, either. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone requests otherwise, I am withdrawing my intention to provide an opinion because I consider this discussion closed.
—Latiligence (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)