Talk:Sentence spacing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:21, 2 September 2018

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

Typography FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sentence spacing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sentence spacing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sentence spacing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Study

The 2018 study that was in the lede was quoted incorrectly. As written, it was a conclusive statement about the readability of double sentence spacing attributed to the study's authors. However, the quote actually came from the secondary source that cited the study. And the author of that Forbes secondary source said it in jest, which is apparent when reading past the first paragraph in the article.^[1] The title of the Forbes article (below) also contradicts the quote as stated in the lede.

Anyway, the study should be in the article, but seems more appropriate in the "studies" section. So I moved it there and clarified some of the details of the study. It also seems to be a bit like the 2002 Loh, Branch, Shewanown, and Ali which found slight evidence in the opposite direction, but not enough to be significant. I'd say this is a worthy contribution to the literature, but didn't conclude anything in the way it was stated in the lede.--Airborne84 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Haelle, Tara. "One Or Two Spaces After A Period? That New Study Can't Tell You". Forbes. Retrieved 2018-08-23.

[1] Haelle, Tara. "One Or Two Spaces After A Period? That New Study Can't Tell You". Forbes. Retrieved 2018-08-23.

[1]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 {{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=2|units=months|index=/Archive index|
 <center>[[/French spacing|French spacing]]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[/Expansion dispute|Expansion dispute]]</center>}}
-== Leeway on Reliable Sources ==
-I've just restored the Heraclitean River article as a source on this article.
-Yes I know wikipedia policy, but it also allows leeway.  The article on Heraclitean River is widely cited on this topic, sometimes by sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable.  The article provides many sources for its conclusions, unlike books that are readily accepted as reliable sources, even though it is trivial to demonstrate that the unsourced opinions in those books are false.  (For example, any source that claims wide spacing was created for the typewriter, which covers the majority of sources).
-The best sources on this topic that are available right now are blogs.  Yes, this is my opinion.  But it is an opinion that is backed up by blogs that provide lots of references versus books that offer nothing more than hand-waving.  If we blindly reject blogs and blindly use books, we are dooming this article to be extremely biased. [[User:Battling McGook|Battling McGook]] ([[User talk:Battling McGook|talk]]) 17:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-: Sorry, but we'll need to see some evidence of what you're claiming. That blog doesn't cite any sources, and a cursory library search doesn't reveal any scholarly books or journals that cite it. Please do not re-add this link without establishing consensus here and proving that it meets [[WP:RS]]. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 19:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-:: You say "That blog doesn't cite any sources".  You have so completely failed to read the article in question at all that it is absurd.  This is a small selection of sources mentioned:
-:: * (The History and Art of Printing (London, 1771):.http://books.google.com/books?id=kkI5AAAAMAAJ&dq=spacing%20%22full%20point%22&pg=PA396#v=onepage&q&f=false
-:: * (The Compositor’s and Pressman’s Guide to the Art of Printing, London, 1808, p. 10)
-:: * (Charles Partington, The Printer’s Complete Guide, London, 1825, p. 207)
-:: * (Cornelius Van Winkle, The Printers’ Guide, New York, 1836, pp. 135–136)
-:: * (Theodore Gazlay, The Practical Printers’ Assistant, Cincinnati, 1836, p. 22)
-:: * (Thomas Ford, The Compositor’s Handbook, London, 1854, p. 36)
-:: * (Thomas MacKellar, The American Printer, Philadelphia, 1866, p. 113)
-:: That's an INCOMPLETE list of sources he uses, that I found in almost no time just scanning the article.  Compare that to, for example, the Bringhurst book which is used here as if it were a reliable source.  It offers zero references in connection with its false claims on the history of sentence spacing.  If I can't restore the exceedingly well-sourced blog article, can I go through and remove all the books which provide no sources for their false history of sentence spacing?  Because every single book that claims that wide spacing was created for the typewriter is not reliable. [[User:Battling McGook|Battling McGook]] ([[User talk:Battling McGook|talk]]) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-::: That's not what I'm saying. The blog author is quoting from those sources, but he's not citing sources for the claims he's making. He's making arguments from the sources he's using, which is what we would call synthesis. That's fine if he is a recognized expert, but who is this? It's someone's blog. I could write a blog like that and why would you take me seriously? That's why we need evidence that other scholars take him seriously—i.e. citations to his blog article from scholarly books and refereed journals. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-::::This is going too far.  A central question is, what was standard sentence spacing before the typewriter.  He quotes many sources that predate the typewriter, which all say that wide sentence spacing was standard.  How is this synthesis?  It's not—it's direct evidence.  On the other hand, sources which claim an alternative view of history offer no sources at all.  That's worse than synthesis, it's a fairly tale.  In what possible sense is a source making a claim with no references at all better than a source making a claim and backing it up with lots of references?
-::::As far as the identity, this is ultimately nothing more than an ad hominem attack.  The identify of the person is irrelevant if the argument is made and can be verified. [[User:Battling McGook|Battling McGook]] ([[User talk:Battling McGook|talk]]) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-::::: Ah, no. Questioning the the authority of an author is not an ad hominem, possibly unless the author is in the room in which case they shouldn't be advocating for their blog posts to be linked in Wikipedia. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]. The identity and credibility of an author is integral to determining if the source meets [[WP:RS]]. As for the content disagreement, I'm interested in hearing from other interested parties to see if we can work on a consensus. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 02:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-::::::The link should be removed. There's a reason why sources must meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Reliable Sources|reliable source criteria]]. There are a ton of blogs out there that cite sources, some plenty of them. But if the blogger or the publisher uses or allows a bad methodology, the author could cherry pick sources to feed a bad conclusion, or employ any number of other methodological flaws. Also important is that this is a Featured Article. That means that the sources used should not be of suspect or questionable quality. [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|Featured Article Criterion]] 1c states that a Featured Article uses "''high-quality'' reliable sources" (my emphasis). [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 20:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-[Resetting the indent level so I don't go insane but this is a response to all of the above]
-Here's what it comes down to.  You are talking about general principles, and I am talking about a specific, very real case.  In principle yes, blogs can abuse sources.  And in principle we hope that books don't do this as badly (although I've encountered many problems with book sources on many different topics).
-But in this very real case, the topic is a simple one in historic terms.  Many sources repeat a story about wide spacing coming from the typewriter, which has not ever been supported by any historical evidence, and is in apparent conflict with any and all evidence that has actually been presented.  On the other hand a few blog sources offer a different history, which is supported by at least some historical evidence.  So in this case, we have story X, an often-repeated but pretty clearly wrong myth, and story Y, with evidence behind it.
-There is a theoretical possibility that the blog sources are biased or one sided or cherry-picking.  But in practice there is not anyone out there saying that at all on this topic. There is no side of the story that is refuting the blogs.  Side X offers no evidence.  Y offers some evidence.  X does not refute Y at all.  X does not offer responses to Y criticism.  This is the context where you want to dump this blog as a reliable source.  Not some general principle about blogs, but a real case where (in my opinion) any rational look at the sources would find this blog to be reliable. [[User:Battling McGook|Battling McGook]] ([[User talk:Battling McGook|talk]]) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-:If you're just looking for a reliable source saying that larger spacing predates the typewriter, that is no problem at all. If you read the lede and the section on history, this is already stated in the article. The blog is not uncovering a conspiracy theory. For example, James Felici is a notable author on typography, and in one of his [http://creativepro.com/double-space-or-not-double-space/ online sources] used in the article right now, he states: "the use of double spaces (or other exaggerated spacing) after a period is a typographic convention with roots that far predate the typewriter." This is echoed in many published books and works on typography, which are listed as sources here. If this is all you are trying to ensure is captured, it's already done, and with high-quality sources. Let's use those instead of using a blog that moves the article away from the Featured Article criteria, damaging, not enhancing the article. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 08:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-{{outdent}} As a side note, you can outdent using this tool. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 08:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-== External links modified ==
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-I have just modified 4 external links on [[Sentence spacing]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=781350898 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623113030/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/francophonie.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/francophonie.htm
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125014532/http://www.neue-rechtschreibung.de/regelwerk.pdf to http://www.neue-rechtschreibung.de/regelwerk.pdf
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205092625/http://ec.europa.eu/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831023726/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/ to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 18:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 == External links modified ==