Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 161

2230:, we don't list all of the alternatives, just because there are alternatives. There are different standards in the world for where to add a possessive "s", for how to capitalize titles, for how to add punctuation to abbreviations, etc. This isn't an article describing all of the world's options when it comes to these issues. (We do have an actual article for that, where all styles are documented.) There are many popular styles we don't mention, because there's no consensus to recommend using them. I don't agree with every convention we have in the MoS, but it's a document to show where consensus has fallen on certain broad style issues in the past. For the less common examples where the advice isn't helpful, there's common sense. I don't want to get into a drawn out debate over why there's a consensus of one over the other or why you prefer one. You're welcome to your opinion, some people share it, most others on Knowledge seem to have disagreed. 8203:"compoundValue-unit"; the optional is simply omitted, leaving "value- to value-unit". A "compoundValue-unit" construction is simply coincidentally similar but for its spacing, and the rationale behind it is different: A compound value is one that cannot be separated, as in "a forty-seven-day journey", "a two-thirds-day journey", "a two-percent increase". In any "value- to value-unit" construction, the value can be compound: "a forty-six- to forty-seven-day journey" and "a forty-six-day to two-month journey". Would anyone write "a 40-minute-to-two-hour nap", "a blue-green-to-yellow-green hue", and "a forty-six-to-forty-seven-day journey"? That's the case you're making. I'm unaware of any style guide that would recommend this. PS: If you'd already made up your mind, there was no point in asking the question, especially if you won't take the answer. :-) 6644:: this will set a precedent for more capitalization wars, I fear. While I favor capitalization and I favor natural disambiguation, a dogged consistency can be the Hobgoblin of small minds. The Billy (dog)/Billy dog/Billy (dog breed) situation was a case in point; so long as there is IAR in the real world and in real use, I favor allowing things to be worked out species by species, and if needed, article by article. Most organizations use title case in their naming schemes (German Shepherd, etc.) and while I like that, the reality is that many other situations are ambiguous (is it a Shetland pony or a Shetland Pony?). I went through some of this in the classical music project (where there are huge fights because, in part, sometimes capitalization is inconsistent between different published editions of various works) and it is just a no-win. 6505:: **would want to explore more**. Something needs to be done and the alt proposal seems sound. This would help with the confusion some editors (really experienced ones too) have discerning between such things as "Yokohama Chicken", "Yokohama chicken" and "Yokohama (chicken breed)". The first is a proper noun to include the word "Chicken", the second "chicken" is a natural disambiguation (used when it is needed), and the third is being used in many places to disambiguate even though there is already consensus to use natural disambiguation in place of hyphenated ones. It is not over-thinking because there is a clear difference depending on usage per reliable sources. I hope I helped clear that up. If a name is used that needs no disambiguation then it shouldn't have one. Everyone knows what a 7752:

distinguish names that use dashes from those that use hyphens, in a predictable, meaningful, information-conveying way, the consensus at WT:MOS (which is all of Knowledge that cares to weigh in on style matters, no some secret club) has been that using dashes for what dashes are advised be be used for is the most reader-helpful approach, vs. using hyphens for everything, the most editor-expedient approach. MOS almost never favors editorial expedience over reader benefit, and even when it does it's because the technical problems inherent in providing the reader benefit have not been solved (e.g. we still "ban" curly quotes because they mess with searches and have other negative side effects, even if they look better to our readers. We don't favor straight quotes

6088:"Horse hoof" vs. "Hoof (horse)"). Article titles of the form "Foo (species breed)" or "Name (species)" are undesirable as breed article titles for other reasons, too, e.g.: simply because they're longer than "Name species", no one is searching for such a text string, it's unnatural, people really expect "Foo species" for any breed they're not already familiar with, and various other reasons. "Forced conformity", meh. That argument is used against every single rule in MOS and AT by someone. The point of this alt. proposal is that every other breed "expert" has some deeeeeply held view about this crap, and will editwar you into the ground about it for a year. This nonsense should just be put to bed permanently, by application of 6306:

going to this way anyway, because that's just how we do thing. I'm trying to save us all further drahmaz by spelling it out now. It won't satisfy everyone perfectly – there's the camp that want to decapitalize entirely other than for proper names embedded in breed names, and there's the camp who want to capitalize all of the names, even types and groups and species (they've already been overturned), and there's the type who revolt at the idea of "Horse" being capitalized in the case of "American Quarter Horse" but not others. But ultimately, they kind of have to go along with the policies and sources. It's just what we do, especially when opinion-based approaches are never, ever going to compromise and come to agreement.

5558:, which applies equally to breed names). Capitalization is a convention; one which varies in time, by variety of English, by topic area, by kind of publication, etc. Where there is such variation the English Knowledge is free to choose its own conventions. Consistency with the choice already made for the English names of species (which I disagreed with at the time) and clarity of explanation for non-expert editors suggests to me that sentence case – capitalizing only those words normally capitalized in running text – is the best convention to adopt. But it's clearly just a convention, and the alternative proposal below is equally clearly just another one. Neither has any particular claim to grammatical authority. 1025:

should always be capitalized. Official bodies can't tell us how to treat general English words; they can tell us how their specialized terminology should be styled if we decide to use it. A possible compromise for the present (this part of the ICNCP is newish and we need to see how far the usage spreads) might be to say that we will normally use the older full phrase "cultivar group" rather than the newer term "Group". What we should never do is to write just "group" when "Group" = "cultivar group" is meant; this is just sloppy and hence unencyclopedic. (Note that the actual name of a cultivar group must contain the capitalized word "Group" if it is to be in accord with the ICNCP.)

5410:

We capitalize a word to show that it refers to a specific, unique, individual instance of a thing as opposed to category of things. A breed is, by definition, a category of things. We capitalize German because there's only one Germany. We capitalize Tara Reid because we are referring to a single person who goes by that name (even though there may be others). If we were to capitalize Cocker Spaniel, it would imply that there is only one dog in all the world that is a Cocker Spaniel, or that we are always referring to a certain specific individual dog when when use that term. I think it's important to remember the reasons behind the rules before we start making exceptions.

3168:

would be very surprised if a consensus would form around that, though I'm really not too certain why it isn't an option. Implementing LQ can be tedious for many AmE editors, whereas the so-called American Style could not be more simple. The previous RfC's suggest that this is – for no apparent reason – Knowledge's EngVar exception, whereby AmE editors are not afforded the opportunity to reject LQ in favor of the American style, even if local consensus agrees, which seems like a very strange situation indeed.

6092:. If someone is really, really, really sure that the formal breed name "officially", genuinely, definitely is "Name Species", they can cite sources to prove it, otherwise we should just use normal English, which is "Name species"; if they don't even have a breed standard to cite that capitalizes, then it's "name species". That's not over-thinking it at all. Overthinking it is when we entertain fanciful ideas like that WikiProject Guinea Pigs gets to make up its own standards, that contradict 6682:

broader audience than their own camp that the rules as written don't properly account for a case they need to account for, the rules get adjusted (MOS is built that way). After BIRDCON, the idea that WP:GUINEAPIGS and WP:FERRETS or whatever get to make up their own conflicting disambiguation and capitalization rules, instead of convincing the editing community as a whole to change the underlying rules, is simply not going to fly. The categories are a mess today largely because of accidental

512:"the MOS only addresses what a reader sees", yes.. that is probably (not?) the way it should be.. I just noticed that the article space of the MOS (not talk-pages) actually do what I'm talking about and not what is auto-generated (in talk-spaces). That is why I brought it up here. Maybe there is a better place to address this. Everyone sees the "bad ways" from what the software does.. Like I said a bug-report would help, not sure where/how, or if there is any place to discuss the software. 6726:"indicates what the article is about". I haven't fully digested topics like birdcon but my natural inclination would favour the idea that different conventions might be developed in relation to different topics. I appreciate that this may be an idealistic attitude. As long as editors can place themselves behind the eyes of the average reader with the pillars et al in mind then I would have thought that positive contents should result. Please forgive any naivety in these statements. 31: 8464:

participants give their thoughts. However, it would have to be worded neutrally (which means it should be very different from the post you'd left here, saying something like "Should the article on Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein be written in American English or British English? The first major contributor used American English, but there is a case for a strong national tie to Britain (see below)" and then you write your own position in your own words below the RfC header).

6820:; no one has advanced any argument that can be reduced to "experts are all full of crap". The logic in the essay in question, which no one has successfully refuted, or probably can, is that experts in explosive ordnance or neutrinos or coin collecting or naval law are not experts in how to best write encyclopedic English for a general audience. You can pretend this is some kind of attack on experts if you like, but it's a pretense and everyone can see that it's a pretense. 5128:", with "Red" capitalized." Virtually no non-specialist sources capitalize species names. (When's the last time you saw "I was riding my Horse after I fed my Dog and Cat, when I saw a Mountain Lion chasing a Red-tailed Deer"? No one writes like that.) However, a non-trivial number of general-readership sources do capitalize names of standardized breeds. I agree that MOS definitely should say something specific about this, but lower case across the board probably isn't it. 6407:

readers are going to be happy with "Mountain Lion" or "Horse" or "Bottle-Nosed Dolphin". I know the birders hate it when I say this, but it frankly, really, truly does look ignorant to most readers, like when grocers write "special today, Orange's 3 for $ 1". It may make sense in field guides and (supposedly) in orn. journals, but no one else will accept it, even when prublishing orn. papers. It's a lost cause. Far too many people's minds immediately rebel against it as

6241:

like it capitalized that way, or decapitalizing the other to "American quarter horse" because the capitalization is "wrong". This kind of perennial debate has stop, or you can see where this going; people proposing a "decapitalize them all, let God sort 'em out" solution will eventually pop up frequently enough and in sufficient numbers to see that happen. The solution is to use extant policies and reliable sources, and drop the opinion-mongering entirely.

4866: 6898:. It is a modern European breed derived from 2 or more breeds from the Indian subcontinent. With the proposal it will be impossible to identify, if a 3-sentence-stub-article (with outdated 1970s literature) is about a landrace, a breed, an ancient breed or a breedgroup and therefore to link it correctly to commons categories or wikidataitems. The outcome will be, that it is even impossible to distinguish breeds from species. The incident with the 8641:. If the community decides that it should be the British variant, I would expect this change to be implemented through proper procedures to maintain the quality level. And for those who have actually read the article, or claim to have read the article, as night fighter pilot, Sayn-Wittgenstein claimed 83 aerial victories in total, 23 of which on the Eastern Front of World War II over Russian and 60 on the Western Front over British opponents. 7555:

hyphens. MOS is not the Manual of Whatever Is Most Popular on Google anyway; it's based on more than one sort of source, and most of all based on what best serves our readers. Yhe clarity differeniating between using dashes for what they're for instead of operator-overloading hyphens to serve the same purposes is worth the very minor editorial hassle (click on the dash character in the toolbox below the editing window) to use them correctly.

8280: 7479:

circumflex, among several others, are readily available. It's almost wilful. Then they put this half-assed auto fix-it thing in their Word program for interruptor dashes that – can you believe it - does this to a nested phrase. It's ignorant. WP goes to some lengths to make dashes available to editors, not least through buttons under the edit box. Any Windows user is well-advised to make a work-around macro for both en and em dashes.

1259: 680: 273: 1845:

great detail and how we don't have it. If you can think of a new way to explain it that will meet some kind of consensus, more power to you, but defining it as "part of the quoted material" was also fundamentally confusing to people. (Maybe I'll just come back here in a week and see if this newly opened can of worms was successfully dealt with, or if it's just a lengthy re-hash of all the arguments given a couple of months ago.)

7637:– please see what I wrote above. You simply don't know what characters are being used in books unless you have access to the paper or original digital source. (However, I suspect that you're right that there is a trend away from the correct use of dashes as typesetters and trained typists are replaced by authors being expected to prepare text themselves. Whether this is an trend that Knowledge should follow is another matter.) 3300:"we force ... more-difficult style" that is an opinion not a fact (I think LQ is simpler and less confusing) and I think you ought to qualify such statements by indicating that it is you opinion and not a fact. You are in favour of wording in the MOS that forces reference tags after punctuation, is it not hypocritical of you to support one universal rule that you like and then complain about another that you do not? -- 1051:, but they can't tell us to capitalize "group" outside that context, any more than ICZN and ICBN can tell us to capitalize the words "order", "family", and "genus" (and I'm pretty sure one of them tried at one point, but gave up; it used to be not terribly uncommon to encounter a academics here and there, like 30 or so years ago, capitalizing these words in running prose, but no one does any longer). 8230:

using an en dash and a hyphen in "a 20–30-day journey", and the question is not pointless. I had already decided that the best alternative to a version with a punctuation mark for "to" was "a 20-to-30-day journey" . There can be more than one correct version. (I vaguely sensed that someone might be confused by this, but I hoped that careful reading of my post would prevent such confusion.)

3661:(and logical quotation has nothing to do with logic). The problem is that Wikipedians use their own punctuation style now, because they've had LQ forced on them, but few know how to use it. So our articles are internally inconsistent. This is bad for new editors, who need to be able to look at an article and discern consistent styles (punctuation, spelling, citations) so they can copy them. 746: 5524:" (if there was such a person), not "Judaism". But that's beside the point. A number of categories of people that aren't named after singular proper nouns are still capitalized: Berber (which I mentioned), Apache, Nama, Vlach, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Sunni, etc. A number of others aren't: black, atheist, artist, woman, etc. Grammar won't help with the names of animal breeds. — 1562:

applies when the only remaining part of the matrix sentence is a bracket, as in my last sentence. Similarly we should clarify (if correct) that the first word of the quoted sentence is capitalized only if the beginning of the quoted sentence coincides with the beginning of the matrix sentence; I couldn't find this anywhere, and there does seem to be some confusion about it. --

7464:

best practices as articulated by grammar and style guides, we aim to make a high-quality encyclopedia. Many amateurs will use slashes, spaced hyphens, double hyphens, and other constructs when they realize that the hyphen sends the wrong signal; if they were aware of the en dash and how to type it they might do a better job following best practice; but they don't; sad.

6192:: I second the comments of Blueboar. Also, one size fits all approach is not suitable, Breeds are not species, governed by an internationally-understood set of nomenclature. There is significant variation, particularly where breeds are given proper names, and sometimes the registries even trademark a name (I know of one example of this right off the top of my head, 6403:

everyone can have their cake, and basically it seems like a) most people don't care, and b) those who do are too invested in verbally fighting with me to bother to analyze what I'm saying. I thus think the eventual likely result, whether I participate any longer or not, is decapitalization. The opportunity to settle on a standard people could accept is being wasted.

7742:

observe as to what they do rather than what they advise (since they don't advise anything to do with these glyphs) are all over the map, but of little to any use in telling us anything about hyphens vs. dashes. This is because a) we can't be sure what they're using in many cases (see Peter's point above, which is one I've made many times too, every time this

8392:

argue that it should be in British English - for obvious reasons. There is no American connection whatsoever. At least three editors won't listen, and their defence centres on the right (or whim) of original writer to do as he pleases. This maybe a violation of WP:Own (which would be ironic as he added template warning of that on the talk page Please advise.

2523:

it, our style guide should be consistent with external style guides whenever it's not Knowledge specific. This years-long dispute will never end as long as you and others hold the opinion that we can make this up as we go, and that we can create an LQ system that is not consistent with any one particular style guide. Having said that, I guess local consensus

6271:(That would be cool, unfortunately, your walls of text tend to obscure your position, not clarify it.) We already do use reliable sources, etc. The problem is that, if you go way back in the history, the Quarter Horse article actually HAS been edit-warred over exactly this issue (look at the redirect pages...) I also am not certain that 6778:. I think SMcC's proposal sounds logical in light of all this. The trouble is mostly that the people who are most knowledgeable about, or fans of, animal breeds tend to also like to emphasize their stuff as specialists do, just as the birders like to do with bird common names, while sources and authorities have no agreement on doing so. 229:

WP:HOWEVER more than HOWEVERPUNC before the redirect changed, I'll go ahead and put the WP:ATM essay back where it can be chanced across more easily (I assume I'm not alone in occasionally plugging WP:WHATEVERTHETHINGIS into my browser when I'm sure there must be a guideline about something), with a hatnote link to the punctuation page. --

1521:"On the English Knowledge, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not, regardless of the variety of English in which the article is written ... It does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time, but 6661:; it has nothing to do with this sort of consistency (we was a professional writer with a distinctive style, quite fond of consistency in English language usage). In the context, it (ironically enough) applies to the other side of the debate from mine, who are prepared to continue "capitalization warring" despite two policies, 6200:, which NO ONE calls an "American Quarter" and likewise it is not proper to call it an "American quarter horse". (one occasionally, in informal use, sees "quarterhorse") It is a very specific breed, with millions of registered animals. WP is not supposed to engage in OR or SYNTH, and that includes naming of things. 6474:

according to the MOS) from "Hale–Bopp" (a comet named after two people has an endash). Guidance that most editors can't understand discredits the MOS. Your alternative proposal may be a case of the search for the best driving out the good. Anyway, I've written enough (probably too much) on this issue, so no more.

2896:"As Basil Fawlty famously exclaimed, as he struggled to start his car: 'If you don't go, there's little point in having you,' and Nico Rosberg might have sympathised with those sentiments on Sunday when his team-mate Lewis Hamilton roared off to win the Singapore Grand Prix, leaving the German stuck on the grid." 2718:" than I think is warranted, the example is not supported by Fowler's (because the quote does not resume). Maybe you could have an interrupting clause as an editorial note, but that should really be placed as a footnote or in square brackets. So I think we may be talking about a situation that will never arise. 7518:

The MOS guideline may state that, but it has never been accepted as part of the AT policy which has its own methods and procedures on deciding article titles. If you think there is a consensus for that sentence please show me the place in the talk pages of the MOS guideline and the AT policy prior to

7463:

It is indeed annoying that when Bill Gates copied the Mac he decided the skip the part about making nice typography available easily on the keyboard, resulting in so much modern amateur online content being dashless. That's not really a good reason for WP to give up on doing it better. By following

6681:

and did not get it overturned, and then tried in an RfC, and did not prevail). The problem for the "@#$ % you, wikiprojects make up their own rules" camp is that the policies don't permit that, and there is no foolishness to that kind of consistency. When editors (including wikiprojects) convince a

6305:

disambiguation when we need to disambiguate (don't add parenthetical except in the rare case of need to disambiguate a landrace from a breed, and breed from a cross-breed, a breed from an anatomical feature or classification, a breed from a different species, etc.). Ultimately, I firmly predict it's

6087:

Agreed it's a distinction the average reader doesn't care about. Agreed on "Name (species)" format implying a name for a notable individual of that species (though it could also be other things, such as a feature pertaining to the species, those are also better done with natural disambiguation, e.g.

5475:

I was punning upon Emerson, to point out that very thing about those who insist on a one size fits all ironclad rule of capitalization. It isn't going to work! Your comment that capitalization is common across most specialist sources actually lends credence to my point; show respect for the experts!

5364:

done) cleaning up all the improper capitalization of mammals and whatnot that happened because participants in that one project keep pushing for species capitalization across WP, against sources. Goes both ways. It's not a pain in the backside only when one side vs. the other gets what they want, nor

5341:

General-audience sources: Agreed that a majority do not capitalize, but the number of those that do (at least some of the time - it often depends on the writers/editors in question) has been increasing, probably because almost all specialist sources do it, so anyone doing actual research, e.g. for an

5271:

inter-disciplinary standard. The huge difference between this and bird species common name capitalization is that the latter was an ornithology jargon practice rejected even for ornithology articles by more general peer reviewed journals. Not only was the convention not applied to mammals, etc., it

4454:

should be omitted". The reason for this is because to replace a full stop with a comma inside the quotes is not logical punctuation (as it implies that the comma was part of the original quote). Also the placement of the comma inside the quotes was directly contradicted by the next example in the MOS

4124:

Under actual use, American and British styles are roughly equal; neither of them causes non-hypothetical problems under real-world or Knowledge conditions. They also have their particular ups and downs: American style is easier to learn, use and copy-edit (this last being an advantage on Knowledge),

4120:

Trovatore, the most logical way to write and punctuate is the way that will be understood and recognized as correct by one's readers. The human brain does not process visual information the same way that computers parse text. Example: Some fonts are easier to read with some light sources. We don't

3167:

it's an EngVar issue, but they take the approach that it is not so that nobody can say that the BrE system is being forced on AmE articles, but as far as I can tell, it is. I agree that punctuation within quotations should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with the other EngVar issues, but I

3000:

I've been trying to formulate a short description of the rules behind LQ, which has resulted in me feeling that the bit on the comma that is already there is an intrusion of an AQ rule into the LQ framework. Whatever the case may be, the piece on the comma substitution seems a little inconsistent as

2608:

Rationalobsever, please could you give a citation for this thing about commas mid-sentence? As far as I can see, Fowler's recommends on p 647 that closing points should generally be omitted if the quote occurs before the end of sentence and not replaced by a comma (this is in section iii), but that a

2522:

I hear you, but that's not really my point, which has more to do with attempting to gain consensus amongst numerous editors without any frame of reference. I would bet that 90% of our MoS is taken directly from external style guides anyway, even if they aren't mentioned in-line by name. The way I see

1561:

that the final period of the quoted sentence is retained only when the end of the quoted sentence and the end of the matrix sentence coincide ("here a quoted sentence occurs before the end of the containing sentence, a full-stop inside the quotation marks should be omitted"). I suppose that rule also

118:

seems to think this is an accepted practice and/or possibly a "gray area." I would like to see some mention of this in the MOS, either pro or con, so that the area is no longer gray. This would obviate a lot of future conflicts. For the record, I don't see any reason to capitalize breed names -- this

7651:

I found that, having checked through several searches through several book, in the vast majority of cases Google books got it spot on. In some cases the application of the dash rule is pretty ridiculous. When searches are done on certain terms and Knowledge is the only result, even amongst RS type

7608:

Have any of you petitioned Google, Microsoft and/or Mozilla to as them to facilitate in page searches for dashes that use hyphens as the operator? If not then this is one additional reason why the perennial question will continue to be raised. Google books show an overwhelming trend for the use of

7554:

Yes, this is perennial rehash. Short version: Google is useless here because it mostly reports website results, which mostly use hyphens whether they're correct or not, because they're right on the keyboard, and convenient, and most websites are written by amateurs who don't even know dashes aren't

6749:

Perhaps it's not my place to pipe in since I'm not very active in things of this nature, but I do believe we ought to better respect the formality of nomenclature, and favor the capitalization of terms which we would find capitalized in the more professional outlets. We ought not be infected towards

6686:

processes, but if you look at all the concurrent RMs, it's clear that no one but three editors support this chaos, and one explicitly said they were supporting it just because I opposed it, leaving a whopping two editors fighting the inevitable. For no reason. The alt. proposal above actually will

6377:

with overwhelmingly preferred usage in general-purpose publications (e.g., WP hasn't adopted "gibibytes" because the computer press doesn't use it, and WP isn't capitalizing common names of species because it's not standard except in a handful of ivory towers). Animal breed names are kind of on the

6296:

Yes, we do agree on this. I know it's been editwarred over; all of these articles of any note have. The fact is that alleged "subject-matter experts" (many of whom are not, they're just breed aficionados of one kind or another) are all individually convinced they have the One True Answer, and they

6158:

covering all this. Don't confuse actual landraces (local varieties of domestic species that are adapted to their environment without much in the way of selective breeding by humans, at least not within living memory and then some, e.g. 200 years) and standardized breeds with "Landrace" (capitalized)

6109:

games is sick of this silliness. We don't have different AT/MOS standards for how to refer to cars and their parts based on manufacturer, or rivers based on which direction they run, or trees based on whether they're deciduous or not, or whatever. There's no basis on which to make a special case for

5409:

CMoS may have one seeming contradiction in it, but that doesn't exactly open the floodgate or prove that it's a useless model to follow. The reasoning behind their main entry is still solid. Capitalization is not a matter of respect, which is the main argument the breeder crowd seems to keep taking.

4730:

in a relatively prominent position or instead of "Nationality". The idea here is to better facilitate patriotism rather than nationalism but in a way that would give editors more freedom of expression. Nationality only permits entries such as "American" or "British" while citizenship permits these

4270:

write in other types of articles. Also, I wonder if there are any copyvio issues involved with directly quoting material from the movie outside article space. We essentially have 10 quotes that we've made no attempt to justify based on fair-use. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but we could never include

4139:

OK, let's be a little careful here. It is important to distinguish between two senses of the word "logical". I am using it to mean "transparently reflective of the underlying logical structure"; you appear to be using it to mean "that which humans, using a rational process, conclude to be the most

3926:

Many of the problems would be obviated by modifying LQ to prefer to keep the period that ends the main sentence, rather than the one that ends the quoted sentence. Yes, I'm aware that it would probably be an innovation in terms of published style manuals, although it's the style that many have used

2568:

The example that you give here is unfortunate, since one would never include the period terminating the sentence with a sentence fragment. Hence, it would not be there to be replaced by a comma. Besides, the MoS already does in a sense include your final point: it says: "Where a quoted sentence is

1617:

This is one of the most contentious parts of the MOS, with multiple RFCs and pages of debate, from as early as last month. Adding advice about non-logical punctuation is confusing, since that's not what we use. The wording has been heavily debated too, and I think reverting to pre-debate versions is

8565:

tie to one country or the other. The tie you've listed is weak, not strong: The British were not his only opponents, just the only ones who spoke English. However, because strong-vs-weak is a subjective matter, consider using an RfC. That could give you some closure on this issue and maybe bring

8560:

I'd have to prove a connection to the U.S. The first person to do a large amount of work on the article is the one one who gets to choose the arbitrary things about it. "Well it's a little bit closer to British than to American or Irish or Australian" isn't enough. You have to show that it has a

8510:

refers to "strong national ties to a topic" -- the examples it lists are people of a certainly nationality, events that took place in a specific country, or cities in a specific countries. When the tie exists but is not to this obvious strong extent, it is better to just follow the ENGVAR standards

8391:

Having a problem on this article. It is about a German pilot who fought in action exclusively against the British in WW2. He shot down 83 RAF bombers at night, the 3rd highest in history. The original editor spelt the article in American English. In the interests of having "strong national ties", I

7501:

Also, the MOS clearly states, "The guidance contained elsewhere in the MoS, particularly in the section below on punctuation, applies to all parts of an article, including the title. (Knowledge:Article titles does not contain detailed rules about punctuation.)" As the other editors said, there are

7380:

I appreciate that the non alphabetic characters don't influence the search and only put them in for the sake of readers that may have considered the inclusion of hyphens or dashes into searches to have been relevant. As I've said, I've taken a look at the archives and still don't see how we can fly

6721:

I am personally a tad wary of the adoption of one size fits all schemes beyond (or much beyond) the species level. My view is that RS references in relation to any specific genus/family/order etc. may or may not prefer a particular style of presentation. Certainly, in relation to capitalisation I

6240:

policies? This is really a no-brainer, and it actually directly supports everything the horses project is doing in its present article naming. It prevents, however, someone forcing overcapitalization because they say without proof that the breed name "really" is "Calabrese Horse" just because they

5205:

we have to have a general rule (personally I'm happy with just consistency within articles), the easiest for everyone to follow is the style generally preferred in the MOS, namely sentence case. This avoids all the disputes over whether the species name is part of the breed name and so capitalized.

4612:

I have requested a discussion on whether the explanatory key to a list should be prominently displayed before, to the side or after a list, or is there a better, smarter, but still fully accessible to all users, alternative method of providing a key. As far as I can see, the key is not mentioned in

4192:

the efforts to trim down the verbosity of that section, and concur that we do not need to describe or label typesetters' quotation. Labeling it "aesthetic" is terribly PoV-pushing; to anyone not used to it, it's very unaesthetic. Labeling it "American-style" is a factual distortion. Just give our

3598:

do, when quoting a complete sentence, is allow a period, followed by a quote mark, followed by a period. The "inside" quote mark closes the quoted sentence; the "outside" one closes the main sentence. This seems to be disallowed for purely aesthetic reasons. So which period to omit? If you omit

2339:

that which can be directly sourced to Fowler? In my Burchfield edition from 2004, Fowler outlines what we call logical quotation with two overview sections and eight sub-sections. Maybe we should attempt to structure this guideline similarly. I.e., as long as this section is subject to the opinions

2182:

On the question of whether we should cite sources, we generally do not in the MoS, although I don't see why it should never be done. However, in the current case, there is consensus to use LQ on en.wp, nothing more. Which means we need to ensure that we are not taking an over-prescriptive approach,

2016:

If LQ is required of all articles, then this whole section is proscriptive. The guideline is also missing Fowler's suggestion to replace a full stop with a comma and include that comma inside the marks when quoting a fragment that ended with a full stop mid-sentence. As written now, this section is

1968:

Just write as comes naturally to you. Someone will follow up and correct what ever errors you make (even if they are not errors). Then someone else will follow up and correct the correction... after which everyone will get into a long debate about what is and is not correct on the MOS talk page.

1893:

I've pointed you to the vigorous talk page discussion regarding the total wording of the section twice previously. The current section had its examples expanded to address that periods and commas shouldn't be placed outside in all situations. The very first example has the period on the inside, and

940:

started doing so in their own publications for some reason. ICNCP is doing it because they're trying to impress upon people that an actual group name is capitalized (along with the word "Group") in a scientific name (e.g. as in "Scolymus Group"). That kind of skull-drilling is up to them, I guess

425:

Thanks. I'm less concerned about anchor vs. span (not sumething I use). I guess the MOS will not dictate that you shouldn't use extra newlines. Maybe I could file a bug to get rid of them as the default on talk pages. Mostly the extra newlines bug me and then some use them and others do not and you

347:

That is, is a blank line before the general text (after previous section title) NOT preferred? I know the bytes (disk space) do not cost much (but add up..) but mostly I would want the newlines gone for other reasons.. Because then more content lines fit on a page but Talk-page sections are created

8680:

problem, not anyone else's. There are now at least seven editors who disagree with your interpretation. Here's a bit of advice you really ought to take to heart: when you're alone in your position and everyone else who has commented on a topic disagrees with you, it's rather unlikely that everyone

8463:

this third point of mine is debatable. There is a tie to England and to the U.S.; the question is whether it is strong. Since, for whatever reason, you don't find the other five participants in this debate convincing, consider writing an RfC and publicizing it so that more than just your current

8356:

No. Many writing systems, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Arabic, do not have an italic style. Attempting to force italics on these writing systems can render them unintelligible. In Korean, the equivalent to italics was to put dots over the characters, but this has fallen out of fashion and

8229:

I would write "a 40-minute-to-two-hour nap", "a blue-green-to-yellow-green hue", and "a forty-six-to-forty-seven-day journey", although I would prefer "a nap of 40 minutes to two hours", "a hue of blue-green to yellow-green", and "a journey of forty-six to forty-seven days". My question was about

7787:

and as such it needs radical surgery before it is fit for purpose (you will find my comment on that in the talk page and archive of perennial). Comments like "even if they look better to our readers" is a matter of opinion not a fact. The purpose of following usage in reliable sources for article

6624:

I could go on but there is enough to show (to any that really care) that there is a super diverse naming across Knowledge that, far more often than not, has nothing to do with what is used in reliable sources. I checked so many names my eyes hurt and I found that consistently the breed was used in

6473:

rule in the MOS needs to be simple – consensus page by page documented on talk pages can allow for more complexity. I worry that trying to distinguish between "Yokohama Chicken" and "Yokohama chicken" will end up like trying to distinguish "Wilkes-Barre" (a city named after two people has a hyphen

6236:, because reliable sources generally do not support that overcapitalization. No one said breeds are species; not a related point. Trademarks would be capitalized as such, regardless of other concerns, so again not a related point. What, exactly, is the objection to following the sources and our 4876:

The capitalization of animal breeds is not specifically called out in the Manual of Style. This has led to numerous disputes, and it seems to me the MOS should provide some guidance in this matter. There is no reason to leave it up to the individual editor. Obviously this would not apply to proper

2442:, the full stop would not, according to Fowler, belong inside, because the quoted portion does not reproduce the author's complete thought. If we aren't basing this guideline on Fowler, then which style guide are we using? Have we invented a system that we call LQ from consensus of editor opinion? 2407:

This is not 100% accurate to LQ as described by Fowler, because a reproduction of what is technically a complete sentence does not necessarily justify inclusion of the full stop inside the quote marks, even when the full stop is present in the source material. E.g., if the quoted fragment does not

2178:

I'm not sure that guidance of this type is needed. It is something that should only be added if there is clear consensus for it. In the event of such a consensus, I would say that wording is unclear and, as it is, not correct. In my experience, LQ does indeed place final stops and commas inside or

2122:

That RfC wasn't worded neutrally (it made AQ sound as confusing as LQ, and mistakenly implied that Brits always use LQ), and it should have been hosted in a neutral venue. The MoS ought to be descriptive on this point, not prescriptive. We ought to describe both systems (using sources, rather than

1796:

I think the fact you ignored the inline note to seek consensus first was regrettable first. Since that was changed with discussion on the talk page, it's now a bold addition to change it to the pre-discussed version. I think you should show you have a consensus for your change. This is a perennial

1689:

If we say what to use on Knowledge, then it's clear what we use. I know there's a choice in the greater world. That's true of every other section in the MoS. We don't list everything we don't use, and in this case, we have a large number of examples in that section. Any attempt at describing LQ in

1529:

538:

Often a quote in an article will tangentially mention topics that are not otherwise mentioned elsewhere in an article. In such cases it appears obvious that wiki linking inside the quote greatly helps the reader to understand the meaning and context of the quote, but the current wording of the mos

402:

is a template that creates a span HTML tag - which provides a place for other articles to target in links. 'anchor' is a bit better than span because the template can add all sorts of features to allow for browser weirdness without requiring every article to be changed. There is no consensus about

8336:

The guidelines currently say "Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts." But does this apply to book titles? I don't think the restriction should apply to them. Say I am quoting (for what-ever strange reason)

6275:

has trademarked Amerian Quarter Horse, as I am not sure you really can give this sort of breed a "copyright" - unlike a plant cultivar or a prescription drug. The truth is that the real reason WP uses sentence case and not title case (like the rest of the world) is not due to it being consistent

5607:"Vlach" doesn't come from "Wallachia" (OED)—it's more like the other way around. And since you granted Apache, what about Navajo, Pueblo, Blackfeet, Iroquois, Nama, !Kung, Ashanti, etc., etc., etc.? This saves me from having to argue about the others, some of which I admit are in grayer areas. — 5585:

Well, "Vlach" comes from "Walachia," a singular geographical region, and "Sunni" comes from "Sunna," a singular subset of Muslim holy law. The Presbyterian Church was originally a singular institution, though it may no longer be considered as such by some people. And we do not capitalize the word

5266:

Ngrams: Yes, this is why I was initially of the "down with breedcaps" mindset, for several years. However, most more specialized sources do capitalize, and they do it pretty much universally across all species (orders, really), in all anglophone countries, and in every field in which breed names

4116:

I don't think we should be requiring British punctuation on articles written in non-British varieties of English, but as long as this rule is in place, we should get it right. If British punctuation doesn't really require original placement, then neither should the MoS. That being said, I don't

2582:

included, whereas the full stop, as you pointed out, would have been omitted because the quoted portion is not a complete sentence. However, if the quoted portion was "John is not obedient.", the same rule would apply when quoting this complete sentence mid-sentence. I.e., the full stop should be

2330:

I think an issue that is complicating this process involves the varied interpretations of multiple editors. I suggest that we start by identifying which source we should use as a primary guide. I assume that source is Fowler, so why not re-write the guideline as a direct paraphrase of what Fowler

1731:

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time. (In contrast, when using aesthetic punctuation (common in the United States, and much of British fiction and British journalism), periods and commas are always placed inside the closing

1673:

We ought to retain a description of aesthetic punctuation, given that it's what most Wikipedians use (and probably most of the publishing world). It's otherwise not clear what the choice is. We also need a description of LQ. Was there consensus to remove it, and if so, can someone point me to the

539:

supports removing such wiki links entirely. (A cumbersome alternative is to follow up such quotes with redundant but wiki linked paraphrasings, although this also violates the advice to link the first instance of a new term.) What is best practice, and can we update the mos to give some examples?

8456:

national tie to either the U.S. or Britain. You could say that he was an enemy of Britain but he was active until 1944, so he was an enemy of the U.S. too. There might be a tie to Britain but—based solely on what you've told me here—it's only a little stronger than the tie to the U.S. In that

7906:

In that case, my second question still pertains, as I have spent the better part of a weekend, which I hoped to spend doing a second pass on my own transcription, trying to answer endless objections from someone who wants to use my user space to work on their own transcription project. It would

7741:

in their approach, so MOS has to pick one solution or another. Reliable sources about writing mostly recommend using dashes for what MOS uses dashes for, and hyphens for what MOS uses hyphens for. Reliable sources on every other topic – comets, cities, gun, dogs, poker, whatever – which we can

5498:

In general, adjectives inherit the capitalization of the proper nouns they derive from. We capitalize the word "American" because it is derived from "America," of which there is only one. We capitalize the word "Jewish" because it is derived from "Judaism," of which there is only one. Of course,

4069:

These are just choices about how to present pauses visually. If you listen to someone speak, and you're transcribing, you have to make these choices. And if you're copying someone else's text, you can make your own choice about how to present the pauses (which is AQ), or you can use a mixture of

3969:

It's easy to remember, it notes the comma pause, it uses a period to signal the end of the sentence, there's no dangling punctuation, you don't need access to the original source material, and new editors learning the style will know what to do with commas and periods in future based on this one

3048:

I can't follow who is arguing what here, but I want to support Rationalobserver's point about sourcing this to Fowler (and citing it), not making up examples and descriptions of our own, and not leaving out key points. I also can't see a reason to leave out a brief description of the more-common

2359:

introductory remarks would be useful. But what I would say is that we should not defer to any particular usage guide. If there are differences between different authorities, then what we should do is advise both or neither. Plus, from a copyright point-of-view, we can't just paraphrase Fowler's.

2209:

Most publishers don't use it. Most editors don't use it either, and of the few that do, most don't get it right. It's particularly difficult to use correctly on Knowledge, because to do so you need access to the source, but our articles have multiple authors, many of whom don't have that access.

1844:

Yes, it was there a long time, and people constantly fought about it. There was a huge discussion after that, and the text was not re-included after it. At this point, I think that if we are putting Coca-cola on the menu, then we don't need a couple paragraphs explaining exactly what Pepsi is in

1437:

Ampersands save exactly two characters and usually look overly casual or affected. I don't think section headings are limited in space, compared to more fixed-width situations like tables and info boxes. I think the current guidance is fine, and any situation where two characters would make any

1083:

It's not normal in English to use capitalisation to distinguish between homonyms. That's not an answer as to whether a capital letter should be used in this particular instance, but avoiding confusion should not be part of the rationale. If confusion is likely in a particular context because the

8684:

I'll ask you an easy question: TIES gives several categories that constitute strong national ties to a given country - what category does zu Sayn-Wittgenstein fall under? Now, keep in mind that the line of reasoning you're advancing – that a subject from a non-English speaking country that only

8555:

The article does not have to have a tie to the United States. I'd say that this article has no strong tie to either the U.S. or Britain. In that case, we leave it the way it is. The default setting for any article is the status quo. If it were in British English and I wanted to change it to

7478:

Yes, Microsoft's keyboard is really stupid—a profound disservice to proper writing: they include guff that would be rarely or never used by most people (^), and exclude basic (not "nice", Dick) typography. You can't even access a dash using alt or opt, but the now almost obsolete underscore and

6406:

As I outlined at my organism caps subpage, the actual case to be made for capitalizing standardized breed names isn't the same as for species; it's stronger for std. breed names than species names in several ways. I think this is true even from the "what the reader will tolerate". Virtually no

2358:

I'm not sure about the degree to which there actually are varied interpretations of multiple editors here, RO. AFAICT, no-one actually disagrees with what is in the current version (unless I've missed it). It's more about whether we should be recommending LQ in the first place and/or particular

2138:

should have that many spaces after the initials, but it's Knowledge's default style by consensus, and I would not demand that we include a paragraph about how my preferred way is popular and sensible. It's our style convention, even though it's not one I prefer myself. It sounds like you have a

1218:

Support de-capitalisation (preferred) or a presentation of both options as "group/Group" or "Group/group" or similar. If the members of ICNCP staff who initiated the change "cultivar-group" to "Group" were Knowledge editors, they would have been laughed off the page. I can't see merit to this

1024:

I don't like the use of "Group" versus "group" either, but "I don't like it" isn't a sufficient reason. As Blueboar notes the reason for the capitalization is to distinguish the scientific use from the general use; it's not at all the same as it would be if the IAU decided that the word "comet"

228:

Fair point on the article not mentioning that WP:HOWEVER exists - it's also hard to know how much either of these have been used in edit summaries over the years. Given that a badly-structured article is (I think) more of a problem than a badly-punctuated one, and that people seemed to be using

7751:

for reasons we cannot reasonably rely on specialist publications for stylistic decisions when writing encyclopedic material for a general audience. Because works that are at least arguably authoritative on style do recommend dashes for particular cases, and do so on logical bases that clearly

5989:

disambiguation, and it's the way everyone, all the time, everywhere disambiguates these names in the real world, in both speech and writing. Except to be a snooty twit, no one would ever say or write just "I have a Yokohama", except in a context where the reader/listener was certain to already

2671:

How so? It seems to apply to whenever the quotation is interrupted, and has little or nothing to do with identification of the speaker. If you want to interpret the example too narrowly, you risk confining it to the specific phrase "he said". The simplest alternative is to interpret it as any

8202:

Not true, or we couldn't say "a 40-minute to two-hour nap", or "a blue-green to yellow-green hue", which we certainly can. The fact that the construction is redundant when the unit is the same is why we collapse it, but that doesn't somehow transmute the underlying "value- to value-unit" into

6402:

and some otherwise valuable editors actually leaving the project over the matter (for a while, anyway, other than to show up as anons to post hatemail about it and me fairly regularly), I'm trying to be more conciliatory toward specialist views. Here, I've been trying to spell out a way that

3874:

In LQ, the full stop would not be included because the quoted portion is not a complete sentence, so I'm unsure what relevance this example has to this discussion, except to illustrate that American style might accept this. Per the Knowledge MoS, the so-called American style is not an option.

1805:

about the addition. What the other involved editors ended up with doesn't look my proposed text, so I'm not attached to it. But I do know that what you're attempting to add was seen as inadequate by multiple editors. I think you're making it in good faith, but past discussions haven't shown a

7865:

No, removing false starts from a transcript is not akin to lying. That's not what I said. Please don't misconstrue what I actually said. I said you had literally the wrong words for things in your transcript, and then wholesale reverted all my changes, not just little minor ones you may have

5251:

A lot of people don't know what "sentence case" and "title case mean", and MOS and AT and NC pages have been pretty consist about saying things like "do not capitalize, except in the case of a proper name" (we also sometimes say "or at the start of a sentence" and so. I'm thinking we need a

8144:

Too awkward; just rewrite it in plain English: "a 20- to 30-day journey". Doing so highlights the fact that this is actually a contraction of a "a 20-day to 30-day journey", so "a 20–30-day journey" is arguably incorrect as well as awkward. It's not "a 20-to-30-day journey". Breaking the

7429:

that someone has decided to use dashes in a whole range of situations even when no-one else does the same. I have been through scholar and there are still only a few formats in which dashes are used. The Knowledge use of dashes is the typographic equivalent of someone choosing to speak in

7398:

Greg, there's a difference between common practice on the free-for-all web, and best practice in published sources. I'd be looking at Googlebooks and Google scholar. You might also account for Google's erratic transmission of hyphens and dashes (you have to check the actual sources), and on

5180:

proper names, any more than the English names of species are. The grammatical evidence is quite clear. Thus if "German Shepherd" were a proper name like "Germany", you couldn't use an article with it or make it plural, but "I have a German Shepherd" is perfectly ok, as is "I have two German

7365:

Not really. For one thing, a general Google search doesn't differentiate between the two. If you search "books" for "boyfriend—girlfriend problems" (emdash), "boyfriend–girlfriend problems" (endash) or "boyfriend-girlfriend problems" (hyphen) you get the same results (actually you also get

2541:

One last point that I'll reiterate is that the guideline is currently missing Fowler's suggestion to replace a full stop with a comma and include that comma inside the marks when quoting – mid-sentence – a fragment that originally ended with a full stop. E.g., if the source material reads:

6368:

discussion that will affect MOS rather than a MOS discussion that will affect AT; AT spends more time handwringing over sources than MOS does. MOS does actually base most of what it says on sources, usually generalist ones, like other style manuals. But sometimes specialist ones; most of

1177:

I'm not sure we care; ICNCP's internal "we hyphenate, no now we capitalize it this way, or else" varying jargon practices are being and long have been ignored by the rest of the world, who overwhelmingly prefer "cultivar group". I personally went through a bookshelf full of botanical and

5206:

The rule is simple: capitalize only those words in a breed name which would normally be capitalized in a normal English sentence. Remember that editors writing in articles not about breeds and so not specially interested in them may need to mention a breed and need guidance from the MOS.

4089:

Come on, "logic" should be clear, shouldn't it? In the sense of Tarski, if you like. Punctuation to some extent does reflect pauses (sometimes I add commas that are not logically necessary, for that reason), but more importantly, it is a guide to the logical structure of the sentence.

3997:

Well, my objection is that it doesn't follow the logical structure. The quotes include punctuation that is not logically part of the material quoted (or mentioned — the "fraught" quote is a mention rather than a quote, given that no one is actually being quoted). And the main sentence

1422:

says, "In normal text..." What does "normal" mean? I took it to mean prose, and section headings aren't prose. Second, it says, "Ampersands may be used...in tables, infoboxes, and similar contexts where space is limited." Well, space is somewhat limited in section headings, is it not?

2826:

This example provides a good example of why the rule you are supposing is mistaken, whichever version of it we are talking about. Most people would recommend separating off the relative clause in your sentence with commas, which can be understood more easily if we convert to reported

1637:

to cause major drama, as it is the exact wording that caused major drama in the past.. If people want to suggest changes to this section, suggest the wording here and get consensus, otherwise we'll have a lot of angry editors who invested days of their lives in the last few debates.

6382:

do so (contrast this with species common names - almost no specialist sources ever do this either, except ornithology ones , and a few botany and entomology sub-field ones, while other fields and even general science journals will have none of it). But it probably is more of an AT

7782:

I appreciate that we are both writing for a wider audience than each other, so some of the points that you make I assume are made for third parties as I assume that you already know that I must be aware of both pages to which you link. There are some real structural problems with

6159:

in their names; the latter are formal breeds derived from landraces, and aiming to "capture" and breed-true their most defining phenotypic characteristics; but being formal, pedigreed breeds, selectively bred to a standard, they're essentially the opposite of an actual landrace.

1778:

This instant reverting is really unacceptable, especially when it's a long-standing sentence that's being restored. The way that section is currently written is very unclear. Please point to the discussion where it was agreed to remove that sentence. Otherwise let me restore it.

8253:

Best of all, avoid all of these ugly compound modifiers whenever possible and write instead "a journey of of 20 to 30 days", "a nap of 40 minutes to two hours", "a hue from blue-green to yellow-green" (or "between blue-green and yellow-green" depending on the meaning intended).

7845:

I despair of spending what's left of my weekend in a fruitless discussion there, and hope to move the question here, for wider input. A related question: Is it time to add some transcription guidelines to the MOS? FYI, there is a short list of online guides in my user space at

5167: 753:

At the top of infoboxes of BLPs we usually have the person's name as found in the article title or perhaps the first line in the lead. What I'm noticing in some tennis bios as that some editors are putting the foreign non-latin spelling right under the English spelling... as in

5716:: which of the WikiProjects potentially affected by this proposal have you notified of this discussion? Or is the idea to have the discussion without the participation of those affected by it, and then tell them the plans have been on display in Alpha Centauri for fifty years? 6104:

policy based on a handful of individuals' POV-pushing interpretations, and then that WikiProject Ferrets gets to do likewise, but in a way that's not even consistent with WP:GUINEAPIGS. Well, frankly, to hell with that. Everyone but the people playing these precious little

8357:

would not be appropriate for the English Knowledge. The more current practice would be to use quotation marks 「」 but again this is not appropriate here. There are other writing systems where the equivalent would be indicated in a larger font, but again not appropriate here.

5170:) in my experience the sentence case form is always more frequent when there are sufficient cases to make the comparison meaningful. As with other aspects of capitalization, there's an ENGVAR difference: title case is less common in American English than in British English. 448:

Personally I like the extra lines - they visually break things up into easily seen pieces. Notice that the start of my comments are easily found in edit mode while yours are hard to find :) But there's no compulsion either way and the MOS only addresses what a reader sees.

1385:, but I'm still uncertain if ampersands are appropriate in section headings (e.g. ==Rankings & performance==). Would anybody be able to advise me on that? Also, could we maybe add a sentence to either MOS:HEAD or MOS:AMP to make this more obvious? Thanks in advance! – 8181:, thank you for your reply. Even before I posted my question, I had already decided that the best alternative to a version with a punctuation mark for "to" was "a 20-to-30-day journey" . Your version, "a 20-day to 30-day journey" , is inconsistent with standard English 8002:

Hmm. I may have been guilty of some gender stereotyping myself by assuming that having a wife implied being male. Personally, I might have sidestepped the question and used "desk", as I think it is a simpler-to-understand phrase (e.g., I'm not sure whether "partner" has

1187: 3477:

For those who understand LQ's subtle machinations, it is not really more difficult, but it does require that the person checking for compliance with LQ has access to the source material, which is not always a convenient thing for a collaborative project like Knowledge.

2306:

of a word rather than a use. For the last two, the advice is very simple: never include the punctuation within the quote marks. For quote marks used to indicate actual quotation, it is indeed hard to give clear advice, as we discovered in previous RfCs and discussions.

3907:

Knowledge articles regardless of the variety of English in use therein. If it came up for a !vote, I would support allowing local consensus to adopt which ever they wanted, with some respect to EngVar if that's what editors of a particular article wanted. FWIW, the

5730:

People at wikiprojects who care about style matters should watchlist this page. The current discussion has mostly been among people who edit and care about the MOS and AT, to see what support or objections would be raised and on what basis, before any disruptive

935:

internal jargon or not. They only just changed to this style recently, most sources still use "cultivar group" not "Group", and we still wouldn't capitalize group like this even if they did, any more than we'd start capitalizing the word "comet" just because the

3748:, so, despite its apparent logic, the suggestion is slightly absurd. To take it one step further, if a two-sentence quote ends with a complete sentence, then why wouldn't you do the same thing that you would do if you quoted only one complete sentence? Why would 2505:

Technically, it does not matter whether whether WP follows any external style guide, nor whether it chooses to apply the name LQ at slight variance to other style guides, and indeed it does not matter whether the style can be sourced. The purpose of a MoS is to

5476:

Birdcon also is a case in point; after much hue and cry, the experts were discredited and some of them left altogether in disgust. This does not lead to WP being viewed as a reliable source for anything; rather it embeds its unreliability in people's minds.

5586:"orthodox" unless it is used to refer to a specific religious sect. I'll grant you "Apache" as the exception that proves the rule; no rule of grammar is 100 percent consistently applied, even in standard English. But in general, my guideline remains solid. 2681:

That's a different suggestion to what has been made above. I'm not sure, though, that it's really possible to have a clause interrupting a quotation other than one identifying the speaker particularly in an encyclopaedic style. Can you think of an example?

6750:

lackadaisical style by the shrugging informality of less careful authors. So I would tend to support a standard which capitalizes where better-written works capitalize, and ignore those where the style is otherwise informal or unprofessional or just poor.

312:

1. First, note I'm not talking about how section-titles appear to the general Knowledge readers (they never see a difference, I'm discussing what looks/works best for editors of article or talk-space). I'm only talking about how they appear in edit mode.

2971:

in which the advice for whether the comma goes inside or out seems to be explicitly contradictory now, whereas before it was only slightly so. We need to decide which to recommend, or clarify the conditions that would make it go one way or the other.

8566:

in some new voices with new points to make. But write it carefully and invite your other participants to work out text with you ahead of time. A biased RfC will not resolve your conflict because your opponents might not accept its results as valid.

5459:, I know we don't capitalize other categories. (Well, some people capitalize racial "white" and "black".) The way to answer this question is not by whether "golden retriever / Golden Retriever" is more like "Berber" than it is like "white person". — 2213:

Given that we have STYLEVAR, CITEVAR and ENGVAR, it's puzzling that the MoS takes a different approach with this one, difficult, style issue – and now goes so far as to remove even a description of the more widely used, and much easier, alternative.

351:

I try to fix sections to a consistent format within articles. Often both conventions are used, newlines after titles, and not, in a single article and I just fix the few "errors" to the more common variant (depending on article going either way).

8481:

I think you've misunderstood slightly. Please explain why you think there is a tie to the United States. This man fought exclusively against the British. He did not engage American forces at any point regardless of the 'grander' scheme of things.

2251:"Most ... don't use it"; "more widely used": this has no real relevance and sounds overstated anyway – which style to use is a choice; there are real benefits in a coherent choice of style; which style dominates in other contexts is not important. 8486:

is the issue. So to dispute that is doesn't have a direct national tie to the British is something seems to be illogical. At least I suppose you concede the stronger tie lies with the British connection which is something. Advice is appreciated.

3500:

of LQ — even if the period was part of the original quote, so was the part without the period. Similarly for commas. Question marks and exclamation points, if part of the original, need to go inside, but for those there's a clear difference in

7248:

I fail to find support for the use of dashes in real world applications. Arguments in favour of the use of hyphens include accessibility on keyboards. It is easy to search for strings containing hyphens as the hypen key is readily available.

2879:

Here's a challenge: can you find examples of a comma coming immediately before a quotation mark, where what follows is something other than a "he said" type clause, on the websites of The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph or The Independent?

2340:

of editors we will not achieve a lasting consensus. However, if we all agree to only add that which is consistent with Fowler, we will arrive at a lasting consensus that is both accurate to external style guides and relatively easy to follow.

3375:, one of my objections to LQ is that we're forcing a minority preference onto the majority. Your ref preference is also a minority one. My aesthetic objection to LQ and your ref tags is that they leave dangling periods and commas, "like this" 1542:, the full stop would not, according to Fowler, belong inside, because the quoted portion does not reproduce the author's complete thought. I'm not sure if I've explained this all that well, but hopefully others will understand what I mean. 1726:

Someone removed the long-standing warning that LQ does not involve placing all periods and commas outside, which is what most Wikipedians think it means. I can't find consensus to remove that, so if it exists, please show me. I have added:

3549:

Possibly I'm not following you — I thought the "North American" style was "always inside" rather than "always outside"??? If I had to give what I was talking about a name distinct from LQ, it would be something like "programmers' style".

162:

of it, all of them talking about its original thread mode context, and none using it to talk about semicolons in the past year. Is it worth moving this back? I've tripped over it a couple of times recently because I can never remember the

8444:

2. Dapi, if by you mean "right (or whim) of the original writer to do as he pleases" you really mean "follow the precedent set by the first major contributor," then your opponents have a good point. That's a longstanding default rule on

8123:

Those guidelines indicate that, when a range of values occurs with a unit in a compound modifier, then an en dash occurs with a hyphen in the same expression: "a 20–30-day journey". Is this construction supported by the Manual of Style?

7312:

I have seen the archives. It seemed to me that there was no clear consensus. It seems to me that Knowledge holds to conventions that clearly smack against regular use of punctuation, at least as it appears on the web and in books.

6395:

needs defacto rules for what to do when AT tells us what name to use; AT doesn't tell us style matters, like how to capitalize, so it's fine for MOS to say "capitalize the species, if included, only when it's part of the formal breed

3234:

My own preference is that it be a STYLEVAR issue, i.e. the first major contributor chooses. But failing that, ENGVAR would solve the years-long controversy about it, and would make the MoS consistent with what most editors do anyway.

3150:

But that just makes it all the more puzzling that we force the less-popular and more-difficult style on the entire English Knowledge, including in North American articles, where readers are less likely to have encountered it before.

1690:

greater detail to everyone's satisfaction have led to acrimonious debate. I can't dig up every discussion right now, but if you look in the archive under "Logical quotation" you'll see how heated and protracted the discussions were.

7746:

issue comes up; the glyphs are indistinguishable in many fonts), and b) because specialists in rocket engines or marine biology or Serbian history or Pokemon are not experts on English language writing to begin with. See the essay

7031: 4397:

Well let's make a list of the sorts of things Q marks are regularly used for on Knowledge: 1. song titles (covered), 2. words-as-words (covered by the nicknames), 3 direct speech quotations (Darla and Marlin have that). What else?

2634:, on page 647, in IV, a semi-colon is turned into a comma, and included inside the quote marks. Fowler says that "any punctuation at the point where it is broken off, a comma is placed within the quotation marks to represent this." 1229:, I still think that consistency applies. Parallel terminologies to cultivar-group are not capitalised and I think there is an argument to adhere to this trend. In regard to article titling all the needed guidelines are found at 4455:(as was a missing comma on the second example). I have placed commas after the quote to match the recommendation of the next sentence in the MOS (but I am not fussed about whether the commas are retained in the sentences or not). 6687:

give them everything they need. At this point, I'm about to just give up trying to help them, and throw my weight back behind the "just decapitalize it all, other than proper names" crowd. There'll be plenty of support for it.

8407:

The arrogance of Dapi's post is staggering, as is the misrepresentation of the situation. It's not that five other editors won't listen to you, it's that your argument is based on a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding of what

7788:

titles is to make sure that Knowledge articles are found when searches are put into a search engine, I think it is wrong to imply that such a policy exists as "the most editor-expedient approach". I have commented on the essay

7139: 8531:

Or pretty much, in other words -- is the topic Australian? Australian English. British? British English. Irish? Irish English? Romanian but has lived and worked only in New Zealand? Probably New Zealand English. Beyond that,

2736:

Notice that I did not include the full stop inside because, although a complete sentence, it does not represent the author's complete thought, which is another aspect of LQ that is currently not represented in the guideline.

4735:

It also may be of relevance to note that enemies of the United States make consistent use of the term America and that the terminology "United States" is pretty well country specific while the term America is applied to two

1832:

by Darkfrog. It needs to be restored, because it's an issue that most Wikipedians get wrong (which is why recommending LQ is a bad idea, but if we're going to recommend it, we must at least make people aware of that point).

2311:, TQ doesn't solve the problem entirely since it only applies to commas and full stops/periods. You still have to decide where to place colons and semicolons, for example, although these cases are admittedly less frequent. 2247:

That a practice cannot easily be codified to the last jot and tittle is no argument to abandon it. In this instance, when what is "right" is confusing, the detail probably does not matter that much. We may as well abandon

7589:

used in digitizing books almost invariably doesn't distinguish between the different lengths of dashes and hyphens, so nothing can be deduced about the original text unless you know it came directly from a digital source.

8638: 2301:

The situation is somewhat more complicated than some of the discussion above implies. The English Knowledge uses the same quotation marks for different purposes, including actual quotation, scare-quotes, and indicating a

7025: 4459:

Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma should be used in place of a full stop, but other terminal punctuation may be retained. Again, a question should end with a question mark.

7103: 6918:... Knowledge gets stultified and who gets the blame: the authors, that have to deal with some strange worshipped naming-rules that override reliable sources. This is where the fun starts, trouble is sure to follow. -- 4476:

However this example also has a problem. The clause identifying the speaker (unlike the one I am changing) is flawed because the "clause identifying the speaker" precedes the quoted sentence rather than following it.

4161:

If you'll pardon the digression, where did you find that first definition. It's not quite what's in the OED. Is it a specialized definition, like the way "gender" differs in ordinary English and the social sciences?

6434:

don't exist and they can just make up their own, conflicting rules on the fly, I think we all know how that will end, after several more months or years of squabbling. BIRDCON tells us how that ends pretty clearly.

7133: 2651:

When a quotation is broken off and resumed after such words as he said, if it would naturally have had any punctuation at the point where it is broken off, a comma is placed within the quotation marks to represent

2564:

Understood, and I don't disagree. But what we have is probably going to remain a poor reflection of a comprehensive style because it does not make sense to devote as much space to it as a comprehensive style guide

2279:

your comments above reinforce my concern that you are attempting to change the consensus view rather than clarify it. If you have such strong feelings against LQ, then you probably shouldn't be making these edits.

4285:

We're probably okay for copyvio, but I see what you mean about focusing more on the type of quotation that would happen in an article. Things like song titles are more common than long dialogue-style quotations.

5739:

histrionics muddy the waters. If this discussion were to conclude with a likely consensus, something more specific will be drafted and formally proposed, with other forums notified for broader participation.

3582:

It's not a "rule of thumb". It follows the logical structure. The period always has the meaning of closing the sentence at the same logical level at which it appears. You just might omit to close off the

2043:

I think the LQ recommendation ought to go. Most publishers (and most Wikipedians) use inside punctuation. LQ is difficult to use correctly, and difficult to explain. But at the very least, the long-standing

7097: 7013: 7821: 7037: 5842:

consistently capitalize the name; when standards do not agree on capitalization of a term, or in the absence of a standard, use lower case except for proper names. For other varieties or populations, see

5163:

It would be helpful if we used "title case" vs. "sentence case" rather than "capitalization" vs. "non-capitalization"; everyone agrees that words like "German" or "Rhode Island" are capitalized regardless.

2783:

Because you've attributed the first part to Fowler's and the second part to Knowledge, so what you've ended up with two separate quotations. Also, because your sentence does not contain any "words such as

1924:

should be restored, because the key feature of LQ is that there is no definitive answer for every situation, or as Fowler says, "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed

198:, I guess I have to acknowledge that my modified version of the shortcut hasn't proved so popular thus far. Perhaps that is because the article doesn't mention that it exists, whereas it does mention the 2456:

Umm, that's not the guideline as written; please note that you seem to be quoting the removed sentence as if it was in the guideline now. Many editors agreed with you that the description that contained

8685:

interacted with one English-speaking country ought to be written in that version of English – has been raised specifically in the past and overruled (which is why, an example I have pointed out before,

5357:

Consistency: The number, frequency and heat of disputes about this stuff are more than adequate to demonstrate that "just do whatever, as long as it's consistent inside the same article" isn't working.

5267:

come up frequently. These include the show-breeding fancy, animal sports, livestock management and breeding, genetic resources conservation, veterinary medicine, and many others. I.e., it really is a

2206:, it's both. I think LQ shouldn't be recommended on WP because it's fussy and difficult to get right. It's a measure of how difficult it is that MoS editors have not been able to describe it clearly. 286:

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at

5272:

was thrown out by everyone even for birds, except in most (not even all) ornithology journals (and bird field guides). It would be as if no one ever capitalized the names of domestic animals, except

5209:

Whatever is decided, both forms will continue to be commonly used throughout Knowledge articles, as they still are for the English names of species regardless of the long and bitter battles over this.

4266:. I cannot envision any of these actually occurring on Knowledge outside a plot summary, which is okay for one or two, but at least some of the examples should represent things that Wikipedians would 4012:

Oh — on further reading, the period at the end of the "Internet" quote actually does belong to it. Still, the period to close the main sentence is not there. To my mind, if you really can't stomach

7145: 6774:. Therefore, what we respect is high-quality sources written for a general audience, and we look for consistent capitalization as a clue that something really is considered to be a proper name, per 2862:

are likely constructions on Knowledge. Except maybe from an article about a movie or book that details a plot summary, every current example is incredibly unlikely to occur in encyclopaedic writing.

1491:

again and again, it becomes too long and less helpful. On the other hand, it's fine to ask here for clarification and usually people are happy to help (if a little snotty - I apologize for my tone).

3842:

That may well be true, but, as with scare quotes, I cannot foresee an example where you could correctly include a full stop inside the quote marks while using them as |mention distinction; can you?

2578:

I think it looks better now, and to clarify, all I meant was that because the source material being quoted included a full stop – e.g., "not obedient.", that full stop is replaced with a comma that

4143:

Now, I think the two senses happen to give the same answer here, but that is a different argument. When I use the term "logical" for a style of punctuation, I am referring to the first sense, not

355:

2. Another thing, often spaces are added before and after the title itself ("== General notes =="), I at least try to keep either format in an article, but do not like or find the spaces helpful.

7109: 5680:; when those become articles, will they be capitalised? However, these are largely academic, though I'd appreciate views on the foreign-language names. Overall, we capitalise, as do the sources. 1654:

EDITORS PLEASE NOTE: Changes to this section may escalate into heated dispute. Please consider raising any proposed changes for discussion and consensus-building on the talk page before editing.

8604:

I ignored it before, but you kept needling me - certainly everyone has a point at which their patience is exhausted. My earlier silence does not mean your condescension was acceptable behavior.

479:"Notice that the start of my comments", means there is a misunderstanding. I see your point and actually agree and added newlines for my comments. What I was strictly talking about is newlines 7229: 6722:

think that relevant topic specific conventions may perhaps be followed. The important thing for the reader, however, is that, where possible, sufficient title information is given so that an

1517:

has been improving the section on logical quotation; nice work! I also noticed that there appears to be an error or omission contained therein. I'm specifically referring to this statement:

7157: 7121: 7085: 7859: 483:

section titles. See my changes to this thread, what I just did in the edit I making right e.g. deleteing the newline after "== Preferred format of section titles? ==". The <newline: -->

7049: 5021: 8045:

I went ahead with "boss's office". Sounds "official" and rolls off the tongue better than "boss's desk". I'm still going to carry on dropping the S after an apostrophe elsewhere, though.

7537: 4070:

their choice and your own, depending on the context (which is LQ). My question to you is: why not make the choice that is easier to follow, for you and those watching (e.g. new editors)?

2802:

Above you said, "I'm not sure, though, that it's really possible to have a clause interrupting a quotation other than one identifying the speaker particularly in an encyclopaedic style."

1314:

U.S. is not the best example to use in this section. I suggest it is changed to some other country where full stops are not an issue described higher up the page eg New Zealand (NZ). --

6140:

The use of lower case "landrace" needs a RS. According to OED, the upper case "Landrace" is a Danish breed of swine, the lower case "land race", is two words, and applies to non-pigs. —

5295:, but conversely that in most breeds the species name is not part of the breed. I'm sick of this constant squabbling over minutiae, so I've proposed a simple sources-based solution in 4640:

We say here, "Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA), because these abbreviations are also used for United States Army and other names."

3789:, (2) scare quotes (including the case of indicating that you're duplicating the nomenclature of a particular author which may be idiosyncratic), and only finally (3) actual quotations. 3756:

be in correct? I don't see why the preceding material should help determine the placement of the final full stop, so that one sentence might have it included but two or more would not.

1475:

that says something along the lines of, "Headings should not contain ampersands, except as part of set phrases, corporate names, and common abbreviations (e.g. R&B or AT&T)." –

262: 7866:

disagreed with, but everything. That's your prerogative, it's your userspace, but it's wrong, because I found words that were wrong. Not "false starts" but other actual wrong words. —

7067: 300: 7187: 4446:

I am going to partially reverted the outcome of a series of edits made on 21 September. from "Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, its

7193: 4002:

punctuation that is logically a part of it; there is no period to close the sentence, because the last period that appears is part of the quote and not part of the main sentence. --

7223: 771: 8294: 7669:

Except no one bases their judgement of the intelligence of third parties on the nearly indistinguishable typographic results of some Google searches. Let's not be melodramatic.

7151: 7115: 7079: 7007: 7847: 5622:. English names of domestic animal breeds, hybrids, and lines are invariably capitalised in Knowledge as in all reliable sources, such as (to name a couple of the most obvious) 2876:

I don't think it matters very much one way or the other if we describe a rule about something that is unlikely to occur, so long as following the rule will not produce an error.

8695:

As to what language was spoken in the Soviet Union, you said above that the British were his only opponents (in response to Darkfrog's comment about the British being his only

7043: 7211: 1043:

Agreed; I wasn't suggesting we replace "Group" with "group", but rather "cultivar group" like most sources and like our own article prefer. ICNCP can tell us to capitalize "

738: 6469:

I understand well all the points you're making, and as you know I'm generally sympathetic to trying to find compromise positions. I'm just not convinced that it will work. A

6343:(here capitalization) on sources, which is precisely what has been rejected in so many other cases. It would certainly be a very good precedent for re-opening some of these. 3828:

Italics don't always work well. They work OK for words-as-words, provided you aren't using them elsewhere for emphasis. But use–mention is much more than words-as-words. --

388: 8790: 8326: 4562: 702: 8298: 7061: 5689: 5092:(but not exclusively specialist sources) matter: Do most reliable sources indicate that it's always part of the name (as in cases too ambiguous for anyone otherwise, like 5032:

is not about capitalization of the unique part of the breed name, which has been done throughout almost all articles on formal breeds already. (Whether one wants to make a

707: 697: 4834: 305: 8269: 5761: 4886: 8552:

In my experience, Dapi, making up diminutive nicknames for people only insults them. If you actually want to make progress, don't call Parsec "Parky." He's not a puppy.

7839: 8021:

An object would better. How about "penis"? Wait no, that's no good. "Desk" is. "Partner" could mean business partner, and if the boss has a partner, (s)he's not really

5802:

consistently capitalize the name; when standards do not agree on capitalization of a term, or in the absence of a standard, use lower case. The names of breed groups,

4842: 1633:

For now I think we should revert to the wording that was settled from the last few debates. I don't think SlimVirgin had a clear consensus to revert to wording that is

7291:

you'll find that this issue has been the repeated subject of debates, all of which have ended in support for the status quo. It's not worth discussing all over again.

6035: 3965:

Discussing the view that "LQ is absolutely fraught with problems," Travatore recalled that placing periods outside is "the style that many have used on the Internet."

2657:

This only seems to apply in the specific case of a clause identifying the speaker, as per the current guidance, not to any case where a quotation occurs mid-sentence.

7288: 7175: 7169: 6625:

the body of a reference. I suppose it just makes too much sense to call cattle as cattle, a bird a bird, a chicken a chicken, and so forth as natural disambiguation.

6038:. All three options are sufficiently clear as to what the article is about... all three sufficiently disambiguate the topic from other topics that could be entitled 1301: 287: 264: 8778: 4630: 4125:

but British style is more familiar to computer programmers, who make up a disproportionate number of Wikipedians (though not so much as in Knowledge's early years).

4037:

directly quoting me, so my previous "on further reading" intervention is more-or-less backwards. Still, with the obvious modifications, I hope my point is clear. --

7019: 6276:

with any style manual that I know of, but because the software seems to insist that Capitals and lower-case letters are two different things - for Caps, at least.

5567: 4359: 4345: 4309: 4295: 4280: 4257: 3241: 3177: 3157: 3095: 3073: 2349: 2099: 2071: 1953: 1938: 1882:). We do need to warn editors that LQ does not mean sticking periods and commas outside. Can you point me to the discussion where there was consensus to remove it? 801: 7205: 7163: 7127: 7091: 6770:

The trouble with "most professional" sources is that they may be "most specialized" and therefore most likely to emphasize their own terms by capitalization. See

5555: 3936: 3921: 3898: 3884: 3869: 3851: 3837: 3823: 3801: 3652: 3638: 3608: 3577: 3559: 3542: 3521: 2484: 2470: 2026: 7599: 6483: 6456: 6352: 5943:

This would be consistent, easy and compatible with the largest number of reliable sources, both specialized and general-audience. The only likely objections are:

5396: 4853: 4601: 2906: 2889: 2871: 2851: 2821: 2797: 2778: 2760: 2746: 2727: 2709: 2643: 2451: 2368: 1211: 1072: 1034: 831: 8263: 8078: 8032: 7055: 5008: 2601: 2592: 2573: 2559: 2536: 2517: 2320: 1107:

it's perfectly normal to use capitalization in English to distinguish homonyms. What's unusual in this case is that one of the homonyms isn't being treated as a

6759: 6673:

tells you how that's going to end. The bird species common name capitalization debate, with dragged on for years, was eventually shut down by a single, simple

5484: 3599:

the "outside" one, my programmer brain says that the main sentence was never closed off at all, and it bugs me. Omitting the "inside" one bugs me much less. --

1760:. All it takes is one look at the archives to see that making broad undiscussed changes to this section is like starting a forest fire of wasted editor energy. 8242: 8224: 8197: 8166: 7978: 7664: 7646: 7513: 7393: 7375: 7360: 7343: 7325: 7300: 5656:, following English capitalisation rules? Another area that is grey to me is the capitalisation of colour variants and the like in pet and fancy breeds; is it 5120:" dog), the usage in general, non-specialist sources is much more mixed than it is for species common names; "German Shepherd" is actually quite common. Even 4214: 2751:

This example is also not supported by Fowler's because it doesn't contain a single quote which is broken up and resumes. It just contains two separate quotes.

1607: 1589: 1571: 1245: 1120: 1093: 871: 845: 778: 6841: 6708: 6652: 6327: 6284: 6262: 6208: 5614: 5531: 5466: 5222: 5199:, for example, has had several articles about dogs in the last few years – most recently in the June 2014 issue – and never capitalizes words like "shepherd". 4578: 4421: 4407: 4389: 2289: 1502: 1412: 621: 588: 570: 8650: 8473: 7690: 7576: 7073: 6970: 6927: 6868: 6787: 6738: 6131: 6082: 5871: 5520:

I meant "American" as a noun, and I used the noun "Jew", not the adjective "Jewish". If you want a proper name that "Judaism" is derived from, it would be "

5116:

proper names to begin with (Persian, etc.), thus capitalized by everyone, and for those that are not (or contain parts that are not, e.g. the "shepherd" in "

4971: 4823: 4796: 4659: 4412:

In the same group as song titles are episode titles and short story names. Also, nicknames when included in part of a non-nick-name ("Weird Al" Yankovic). --

4171: 4156: 4134: 4099: 4076: 4046: 4025: 3744:(ec) Right, Trovatore, and Fowler agrees that one could logically come to that conclusion, but as a matter of style, it would be absolutely ghoulish to have 3683: 3667: 3309: 2613:" (section iv). This is the same advice as given by the Oxford Guide to English usage. So, I'm very unsure that the change made to the page was appropriate. 2239: 2148: 2129: 2117: 1903: 1888: 1854: 1839: 1785: 1769: 1699: 1680: 1152: 1015: 985: 658: 636: 521: 493: 462: 435: 416: 252: 238: 223: 210:

is even less popular. The uses basically all seem to be in old archives from before the change of destination. Anyhow, I suppose I won't feel obliged toward

7737:

That's putting the cart before the horse, and you're quoting me out of context, and inverting the very meaning of the point I was making. Reliable sources

6180: 6149: 5983:

it, that being the job of the article text. Animal breeds, and landraces, and types, and whatever, are best distinguished by clear wording in lead sections.

5149: 4956: 4782: 4751: 3055: 1815: 1716: 1664: 1647: 1401:

as saying pretty clearly that we generally don't use ampersands, but that there are a few places where it is OK. Section headings generally wouldn't be OK.

1171: 8772: 8378: 8052: 6812: 6634: 6267:

Comment: : The you are describing pretty much the status quo on the horse breeds, but I am actually unclear what your actual position is on this issue -

4911:- Dictionaries and neutral style books tend not to capitalize breeds, while pet industry publications do. However, to cite the latter is an example of the 4607: 2267: 2195: 1998: 1323: 8599: 8575: 8496: 8401: 8016: 7997: 7793: 7625: 7528: 7473: 7199: 6398:

Honestly, I would be okay with just decapitalizing them entirely except where they contain proper names (it's the position I used to advocate), but after

5945:

A) Some sources capitalize all words in the names of all distinguished populations, even landraces and mongrelized feral groups. But WP doesn't care; per

3778:

I think there's a key issue here that's not often discussed: Most of the disputes over quotation styles involve using quote marks to, you know, actually

2995: 2981: 2666: 2569:

followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma should be used in place of a full-stop ", though I've now reworded this to apply to other clauses. —

1459: 1162:

It's perhaps worth pointing out that "cultivar group" was never the ICNCP term; it used to use the hyphenated "cultivar-group" before it adopted "Group".

962: 8708: 8624: 8436: 6915: 6387:) thing, anyway. We don't want a situation where MOS "wants" to call some breed by a particular name, but it's not what we use for the title because of 6378:

cusp of this. There are many non-specialist sources that do and do not capitalize them, while all the specialists sources, almost without exception, and

5419: 4902: 3512:

sentences inline. I think (I certainly hope) that that's a rare case. When quoting multiple sentences, editors should consider a pull quote instead. --

3005: 2691: 2676: 2622: 1340: 8120:, sub-subsection, point 8, "alues and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word": "a 30-day journey". 7957:

I don't know whether this has been brought up before (I did a quick search in the talk page archive and didn't spot it), but the pluralization example "

7805: 7777: 7235: 5595: 5508: 4924: 4516: 2258:

at root motivating an introduction of style variation, which is what you seem to be motivating. ENGVAR is a particularly thorny one, not to be emulated.

2186:

I don't think we should revert to May. Even if the current version can be improved upon, that particular action would definitely not be an improvement.

1598:

I'd seen it somewhere. It still seems odd that capitalization of the first word and terminating a sentence with a period are dealt with so far apart. --

1366: 8350: 8138: 7549: 7492: 7442: 7416: 7181: 6887: 6027: 5253: 4711: 4229:

expect to find on Knowledge? As they are currently written, I cannot imagine any of these constructions occurring on Knowledge outside a plot summary.

3397: 2812:

The need to identify the speaker can be established by the preceding material, and in the proper context the above example is perfectly encyclopaedic.

1251: 128: 8667: 8543: 8522: 1481: 1429: 1391: 7936: 7916: 7877: 6048: 5806:, traditional varieties, feral populations, and other groups or types of domestic animal are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name. 7217: 5725: 5234:

It'll itemize a response; none of it's earth-shaking, and may not affect the outcome much, so I'll collapse-box it to avoid a text-wall in mid-RfC.

4806: 4121:

need colors to be inside the lines to recognize objects in paintings. The numerical ratio 1:1.66 usually looks uncannily appealing to most people.

1190:

that of "cultivar group", "cultivar-group" "cultivar Group" and "Group of cultivars", only the first appears in statistically significant numbers.

8737: 7901: 7274: 5176:– well, no; most breed names seem to contain words that are conventionally capitalized, like geographic locations, but in their entirety they are 4882: 4060:

in this context (the fraught fragment is a quote from Rationalobserver, and the other fragment is a quote from you – just not the whole sentence).

3487: 1551: 111: 4679: 4300:

I would be happy to come up with a few alternates, but I get the feeling that FormerIP will revert any attempts to remove the existing examples.

3912:

is 100% AQ, and as far as I can tell, that's the manual that is most often followed here, not that that has any particular bearing on consensus.

2527:

trump all external logic and reasoning, and I think I'll just disengage here, as this is a mess that nobody wants to correct in any lasting way.

1306: 968:

My only concern is that it might cause confusion if we keep the word "group" but de-capitalize it? I am thinking of those (like myself) who are

6016: 2858:

FormerIP, if your point is that we ought not include any language that refers to unlikely scenarios, will you please indicate which, if any, of

2172:

As has been pointed out above, this doesn't always hold. As it is often described, LQ is about placement according to sense (i.e. *not* source).

733: 693:

Some templates MOS uses for its example formatting have been listed at TfD under the mistaken impression they're redundant quotation templates:

548: 5673: 5669: 4540: 1471:

were able to read between the lines, but you guys are more familiar with the general policies than myself. Would it be fair to add a bullet to

8766: 6073:, imposed simply for conformity's sake, it becomes pointless and disruptive. An insistence on conformity simply leads to needless arguments. 2967:

My copyedit that you reverted was just trying to make it read better. But there's a bigger issue in the immediately preceding edits, such as

7723: 5769: 5661: 5627: 5283:

NB: There's an army of dog people who will argue with you until you keel over dead that the formal breed name of the canine you mentioned is

4870: 4653: 1947:

That's a good way to put it. We ought to base this section on sources, rather than editors making up examples and descriptions of their own.

8145:

construction down, it has this structure: "count range( value- to value-unit ) referent", not "count range( compoundValue-unit ) referent".

3568:

do one thing or the other is not at all LQ, which explicitly suggests to place "according to sense", not to place based on a rule-of-thumb.

2220: 1746: 8457:

case, we go back to the default rule which is to use whichever style of English the first major contributor to the article happened to use.

4665: 1627: 762:

doesn't have his infobox this way. Is there something in the manual of style I missed that tells us the correct way of doing this? Thanks.

6339:

if this is the best compromise – and I'm not saying it isn't – the problem with accepting it in the MOS is that it's an example of basing

5844: 4878: 3765: 1980: 403:

whether it should be above or in the section title but don't put it after the section title. Just keep it neat and it will work out fine.

151: 8384: 7948: 5365:

is it more a problem this time than it was before just because the one side doesn't prevail in the face of the other. Goose/gander. :-)

4238: 3903:

I think LQ is absolutely fraught with problems; I was merely pointing out that the current consensus is to disallow AQ and require LQ of

2254:

xxxVAR: These are all symptoms of a lack of uniformity, but at root they are a rule to keep the status quo rather than warring. They are

4618: 4225:

Does anyone else think that we should construct new examples that are representative of the kind of encyclopedic writing that one might

2065:

I agree with Rationalobserver that the current version does not explain it well. Perhaps we should revert to before the May 2014 edits.

8699:

opponents, which was in turn a response to your assertion that he only fought British aircrews) - MisterBee was simply correcting you.

3792:

Now, for the first two uses, putting terminal punctuation inside the quotation mark just makes no sense at all, as far as I can see. --

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3625:

Sorry, but, according to Fowler, this is also wrong; he addresses this point in 2(v), and he recommends that "the point should be set

2583:

swapped out with a comma that is included inside the quote marks even though the original text did not have a comma in that position.

1438:

difference in a section head is probably incredibly rare. Exceptions for set phrases, corporate names, and common abbreviations (like

8722: 5648:

There are some grey areas. One is the capitalisation of foreign-language names that are current in English: should our article be at

4858: 4828: 4585: 4545: 2090: 7907:

really really help to have some useful MOS statement about standards for editing transcriptions, so one can just give them a link. —

4489: 3991: 3976: 3674:

Ideal would be to use programmers' style consistently, and completely short-circuit the nationalistic aspects of the discussion. --

3148:

choice. There has been resistance to doing that, because American style is also used in the UK (in British fiction, in particular).

176: 7403:

were dealt with rationally and thoroughly by consultation of unprecedented duration and breadth for any style issue on Knowledge.

5256:

section where we spell out proper names, start of sentence, start of list item, table heading, etc., and then just refer to this:

8748: 8478:

I am going to ignore Parky since discourse with him has proven rather pointless. It isn't that he can't see, it is that he won't.

6669:, telling them they can't win. If the handful of people who care about breed article names enough to argue about it won't stop, 105: 4588:- I am now sharing it here, but please put comments on the layout page because that is the natural place to archive discussion. 2244:(ec) I was amused to see such a collection of statements with which I disagree (I am referring to SlimVirgin's last post here): 119:

goes against the rules of standard English in just about any recognized professional style book or dictionary you care to name.

8716: 8331: 5699: 4811: 4117:

think SlimV did anything wrong. The in-text warning advises editors to consider posting changes here first; it's not required.

2734:

According to Fowler, "it cannot be done," so Knowledge accordingly recommends that we accept his advice and "give up the task".

1372: 881: 5899:). Do not capitalize the species unless reliable sources consistently indicate it is a formal part of that breed name (as in 4450:

should be replaced with a comma," to "Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, its

3860:(Note by the way that I've given you an example where "American style" would require moving the comma inside scare quotes.) -- 316:

Now that I noticed how the MoS itself is formatted (first example vs how Talk pages are formatted) I wander is it preferred?:

8580:

I've called him Parky before. No complaints. Now we're in the midst of a dispute, all of a sudden its offensive. That's that.

4635: 4558: 1829: 1577: 8752: 8088: 5961:

dispute, which concluded in favor of using lower case for common names of species even when specialized sources capitalize.

4890: 2700:

The speaker has not been identified, but the quoted fragment ends with a full stop that ought to be replaced with a comma.

2170:

Place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

8607:

There's absolutely no reason for an RFC, Darkfrog - there is no strong tie to an English-speaking nation as prescribed by

3163:

It's interesting to look back at the archives and see how many editors deny this obvious fact. It's almost as though they

3144:

Most style guides refer to these as British and American, or North American, style. The obvious solution is to make it an

2968: 8385: 7502:

substantive reasons to prefer a dash to a hyphen. Whether hyphens or dashes are more common is pretty much irrelevant.

6228:

not "American Quarter horse" much less "American quarter horse", precisely because the reliable sources support the name

2835:

This is just common-or-garden punctuation, nothing to do with LQ. But if we also apply your LQ rule, we end up with this:

2550:, because the quoted fragment ends with a full stop, that full stop should be replaced with an inside comma, per Fowler. 797: 8584:

The tie you've listed is weak, not strong: The British were not his only opponents, just the only ones who spoke English

7831: 3782:

something. But that's not the main use model in context! In an encyclopedia, we should not be quoting stuff very much.

7830:

page about whether the goal of transcription should be "a literal word-by-word accuracy". This discussion came out of

7796:, I am disappointed that you did not consider it appropriate to include any of the points I raised in "your" essay. -- 7789: 7748: 6598: 5439:

I'm not going to vote, but I hope a grammatical comment is in order. We often capitalize categories of things. As an

5106: 4912: 4727: 2895: 1530:

represent the author's complete thought as presented in the source material. Fowler gives this sentence as an example:

2408:

represent the author's complete thought as presented in the source material. Fowler gives this sentence as an example:

8427:

been advised, by five other editors, all but one of whom had nothing to do with writing the article. Drop the stick.

8317: 8215: 8157: 8069: 7768: 7681: 7567: 6976: 6832: 6699: 6447: 6318: 6253: 6171: 6122: 6007: 5752: 5642: 5387: 5140: 4999: 4947: 4528: 4507: 4441: 4394:

Egad! Fixed. (And of course the American examples wouldn't go in under the current MoS rules, though I live in hope.)

4205: 1467:

I'm not arguing the rule; I'm saying that it's not very clear. If I got confused, others will as well. Sure, you and

1357: 1292: 1202: 1143: 1063: 1006: 953: 862: 822: 724: 7922: 7887: 6297:

often contradict one another. If we just use extant policies/guidelines and reliable sources we arrive at what the

6602: 5276:

insisted that they (well we; I'm in that one) had a unique special standard to capitalize cat breed names. So, the

2017:

sorely lacking in its attempt to explain what LQ is according to Fowler. It sounds like some editors made this up.

1707:. I don't think anyone wants to do this from scratch by reverting to a version all of these editors squabbled over. 1276:

that could affect the frequent problem of quotations being italicized simply because they're quotations. See also

937: 159: 5849: 5306:

proper names like "Germany" or "Charles Dickens". Rather, a majority of breed names are "officially" of the form

2597:

Yes, I apologize for being obtuse; I should have phrased my reply to acknowledge what was obviously your intent. —

2105: 8692:

is written in Canadian English despite never having even come within eyesight of a Canadian warship or aircraft).

5721: 5685: 5924: 2698:"It has been said, 'we need not follow a multitude to do evil,' but Knowledge editors do not necessarily agree." 1652:

This section has an inline note, that I hope was just accidentally not noticed by the editor making the change:

8586:- What I didn't get from your first point is whether you have read through the article. Have you? Because they 8057:

Even people who like to drop them wouldn't do it here, because it's pronounced "boss-ez desk" not "boss desk".

6594: 2176:

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time.

1273: 579:

Even if it is technically possible to put a wikilink inside a tooltip, I think that would break accessibility.

47: 17: 5078:

Whether (in some cases or in all cases) the species name is included and capitalized as part of the breed name

2046:

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time

1922:

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time

1880:

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time

7586: 5928: 2714:

There's no interrupting clause in that example, so even if you take a wider interpretation of "words such as

2179:

outside quotations marks all the time. Never above, below or in the same place, but always inside or outside.

1878:, I've been watching this page for years, and I don't recall anyone fighting about that particular sentence ( 533: 186:, created around the same time as that change.) To me it seems a lot less cumbersome to use and to remember 6906:

was only a foretaste of what is to come. More breeds will be moved without thinking to improper names like

3496:

to do that. You can just always put the period outside the quote. That always complies with at least the

672: 6955: 3775:— rigid rules like that rarely work well. But for the most part we shouldn't have long quotations inline. 2388:

does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time, but

1277: 8742: 8686: 6958: 6373:, for example, is direct from ISO, ANSI, ITU, IAU, etc., etc. MOS doesn't do what specialist sources do 5887:, etc.) for this purpose, unless a conventional alternative is usually applied in reliable sources (e.g. 3786: 3623:

do, when quoting a complete sentence, is allow a period, followed by a quote mark, followed by a period."

3587:

sentence, but that's not as bad as omitting to close off the "main" sentence (the one doing the quoting).

139: 6988:, do not use a hyphen as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in 5985:

C) "It's a Siamese, not a Siamese cat! That's a made-up name!" No, it's a formal breed name followed by

5195:– it's hard to do the statistics, but most serious generalist sources don't seem to use title case. The 5166:

If you try Google ngrams on commonly used breed names, like "German Shepherd" vs. "German shepherd" (as

1798: 1705: 1178:

horticultural books, and that's what they were also using. Why else would our article be at that title (

8786: 5787: 5717: 5681: 5273: 4849: 4536: 4355: 4305: 4276: 4234: 3917: 3880: 3847: 3819: 3761: 3739: 3634: 3573: 3538: 3483: 3173: 3091: 3069: 2902: 2867: 2817: 2774: 2742: 2705: 2639: 2588: 2555: 2532: 2480: 2447: 2345: 2022: 1934: 1585: 1547: 38: 1487:

I think you are right that it could be more clear. The MoS is already very long though, and if we add

1219:

prescriptive terminology. In relation to article titles I also think that, despite notification from

358:

3. In cases with * or # I, however, prefer spaces after.. (and what about a newline after the colon):

4787:

Ah yea, and that proposal is dead. Not the best place to propose something as far reaching as that.

4495:

Good catch. And feel free to propose alternative wording, though this one seems clear enough to me.

4220: 1508: 972:

familiar with the scientific nomenclature. By capitalizing, we indicate that we are talking about a

931:

is rather like putting a cube of rare beef in a vegetarian's soup. We don't care if it's "official"

909:

names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized; cultivar names appear within single quotes (

426:

get a mix of both in articles.. Changing the default would indicate the better approach to editors.

8337:

someone in Korean who is referring to a Korean book or translation. Doesn't it make sense to have

7348:

How can you be sure? Every form of usage checked supports the use of hyphens in place of dashes.

6985: 6666: 6431: 6101: 5736: 5350:, are likely to encounter consistent capitalization and be more likely to use it, especially since 4314:

Whenever the issue of converting WP:LQ to an ENGVAR-based rule comes up, I usually return to these.

7399:

encyclopedic versus general usage. In 2011, under ArbCom supervision no less, all of these issues

5302:

Proper names: I agree with you against, and was not making any argument for, the idea that breeds

5074:" in a bio article, since readers may have no idea what "Siamese" means in that context otherwise. 2373:

As I said above when opening this thread, the guideline as written is not 100% accurate to Fowler.

758:. Is this the correct way to do it? Isn't the Thai spelling in the lead enough? I notice that the 8646: 8259: 7642: 7595: 7510: 7371: 7339: 7296: 6939: 6554: 6479: 6348: 5866: 5783: 5677: 5611: 5563: 5528: 5463: 5218: 5024:

for why this is complicated for breeds. Most of the disputation over animal breed article titles

4720: 4647: 3889:

Oh right, for LQ there's no problem at all. I'm adducing it as a reason to avoid adopting AQ. --

3564:

Yes, in NA style it is "always inside", so that wasn't really accurate. What I meant was that to

2859: 2461:

had problems of sense. That's why we don't have the wording now, and why it was removed in June.

2316: 2285: 1497: 1407: 1167: 1116: 1030: 793: 767: 8721:"A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." Does this apply to 8511:

and use the original style. We don't pick the policy down to smaller points, where we judge the

7827: 7366:"boyfriend/girlfriend problems" too). We really have been over all of this – read the archives! 3961:, I'd be interested to hear what your objection is to AQ. For example, what is wrong with this? 3060:

FTR, Fowler addresses the "alternative style" in Quotation marks, section 3, which he calls the

8049: 8029: 6683: 6229: 6225: 6197: 5916: 5904: 5323: 5093: 5033: 4968: 4731:

entries but will also permit entries such as "U.S.", "UK", "United States" or "United Kingdom".

4596: 4573: 4522: 1337: 1183: 1084:

reader is unlikely to have ever heard of g/Group, then the answer is to explain what is meant.

850:

Sorry, I mean the basic one does; any derived one that need that feature can simply enable it.

294: 1966:

descriptive and not proscriptive, then I would suggest the entire MOS could be shortened to:

8782: 8361: 8314: 8212: 8154: 8066: 8012: 7974: 7765: 7678: 7564: 6935: 6829: 6755: 6696: 6612: 6590: 6560: 6444: 6315: 6250: 6168: 6119: 6004: 5749: 5384: 5315: 5193:

a non-trivial number of general-readership sources do capitalize names of standardized breeds

5137: 5063: 4996: 4944: 4845: 4792: 4532: 4504: 4351: 4301: 4272: 4271:

10 unattributed quotes of material from a copyrighted work elsewhere on Knowledge. Could we?

4230: 4202: 3913: 3876: 3843: 3815: 3757: 3630: 3569: 3534: 3479: 3169: 3087: 3065: 2898: 2863: 2813: 2770: 2738: 2701: 2635: 2584: 2551: 2528: 2476: 2443: 2341: 2018: 1930: 1581: 1543: 1354: 1289: 1199: 1140: 1060: 1003: 950: 859: 819: 721: 248: 219: 203: 199: 191: 6657:

You're misinterpreting Emerson; his "hobgoblin" quote is about the "foolish consistency" of

5109:

essay, and am not entirely convinced it's applicable in this case, because most breed names

182:

Thanks for the courtesy of bringing it up rather than just changing it back. (There is also

8762: 8571: 8469: 8238: 8193: 8134: 7969:. We could, e.g., substitute 'spouse' or 'car' or 'desk' instead of 'wife' to avoid that. — 7334:

and I'm sure there won't be now. In the absence of such a consensus, the status quo rules.

6903: 6538: 6384: 5920: 5900: 5097: 4779: 4708: 4417: 4403: 4385: 4341: 4291: 4253: 4167: 4130: 2839:

Nonetheless, it was decided that, if "it cannot be done,", then "we must give up the task."

2831:

Nontheless, it was decided that, if it could not be done, then the task should be given up.

1179: 841: 654: 644: 617: 606: 584: 566: 544: 457: 411: 5907:). Add the species after breed names that use terms applicable to more than one species: 4643:

The rationale pertains to prose. Is there any reason to shorten or expand USA in template

2986:

Sorry, that was just me not paying attention to my own revert. I've done it properly now.

2475:

My bad. I hadn't looked back the guideline since SlimVirgin's recent edits were reverted.

194:, and it seems difficult to remember that the two strimgs could lead to different places; 8: 8704: 8620: 8432: 7834:

about a transcript of his civility speech at Wikimania 2014 that has just been posted by

7792:--which by and large is your own work presenting a point of view that you favour--on the 7784: 7743: 7707: 6911: 6810: 6650: 6568: 6512: 6282: 6206: 5912: 5908: 5853:, not parenthetical, for names that may be ambiguous or confusing to the average reader: 5482: 5327: 5288: 5284: 5117: 4838: 4614: 4152: 4095: 4042: 4021: 4007: 3932: 3894: 3865: 3833: 3797: 3679: 3648: 3604: 3555: 3517: 2810:

Nonetheless, it was decided that if "it cannot be done," then "we must give up the task."

632: 517: 489: 431: 384: 6542: 5022:

User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Capitalization of breeds and cultivars

4893:

page be amended to add animal breeds to the list of items that are generally lowercase?

627:

And what of people on portable devices? That's increasingly something we must consider.

8642: 8346: 8255: 7656: 7638: 7617: 7591: 7504: 7469: 7434: 7385: 7367: 7352: 7335: 7317: 7307: 7292: 7266: 7254: 6966: 6923: 6864: 6783: 6730: 6582: 6475: 6388: 6359: 6344: 6078: 6056: 5972: 5774:

I think the chaos in treatment of animal breeds can be fixed with a simple addition to

5608: 5580: 5559: 5546: 5525: 5493: 5460: 5434: 5229: 5214: 4743: 4626: 3807: 2991: 2977: 2885: 2847: 2793: 2756: 2723: 2687: 2662: 2618: 2364: 2312: 2281: 2191: 2011: 1976: 1493: 1468: 1403: 1237: 1226: 1163: 1112: 1089: 1026: 981: 941:(I think it's a bit intelligence-insulting), but it's not something we should emulate. 784: 763: 759: 755: 234: 172: 133: 8637:

For the record, the choice of English variant, right or wrong, was established at the

5957:, we use lower case when the sources do not agree. This was the central issue in the 5066:

tells us to do this in article prose any time the usage isn't clear. E.g., use "had a

641:

My question is, for stylistic reasons, in this example why wouldn't we prefer simply:

8046: 8026: 7961:" may appear to reinforce the notion that bosses are generally male, which could be " 7912: 7855: 6989: 6792:

Um, Dicklyon, SSf is not a guideline, it's just an essay of MC's personal opinions.

6670: 6576: 6520: 6399: 6302: 6145: 6055:(notable) animal named "X" (for example, I think it makes sense to reserve the title 5986: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5932: 5827: 5811: 5639: 5631: 5591: 5504: 5415: 5277: 5059: 5046: 4982: 4965: 4920: 4898: 4589: 4566: 4563:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#WP:ORDER_and_a_master_list_for_the_layout_order

4375: 3002: 2673: 2598: 2570: 2514: 2264: 2123:

making up our own descriptions and examples), and request only internal consistency.

1334: 649:? That is already what the current JFK article does, but the current MOS opposes it. 290: 195: 187: 124: 6224:

Oppose on what basis, though? This (the alt.) proposal would in fact having us use

555: 8663: 8612: 8595: 8540: 8533: 8519: 8492: 8413: 8397: 8308: 8206: 8175: 8148: 8117: 8060: 8008: 7970: 7966: 7950: 7759: 7703: 7672: 7558: 6907: 6823: 6795: 6751: 6690: 6630: 6564: 6464: 6438: 6334: 6309: 6244: 6162: 6113: 6031: 5998: 5991: 5946: 5862: 5815: 5743: 5713: 5676:? There are about a hundred chicken colour patterns, not nearly all of them in the 5665: 5378: 5261: 5131: 5125: 4990: 4938: 4788: 4498: 4196: 4016:, it is worse to omit the period at the top level than the one inside the quote. -- 3145: 2438:

If we quoted a portion of that material that was also a complete sentence, such as

2135: 1538:

If we quoted a portion of that material that was also a complete sentence, such as

1514: 1348: 1283: 1220: 1193: 1134: 1054: 997: 944: 887: 853: 813: 715: 244: 215: 147: 5554:

Absolutely – any more that it did with the English names of species (see my essay

4613:

any MOS guideline. Whilst the discussion started at a FLC review and continued at

288:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?

8758: 8730: 8567: 8465: 8234: 8189: 8130: 8004: 7992: 7711: 7706:

you write "based on what best serves our readers". Which best serves our reader "

7545: 7487: 7411: 6899: 6883: 6801: 6546: 6506: 6233: 5292: 4758: 4687: 4554: 4547: 4413: 4399: 4381: 4337: 4287: 4249: 4163: 4126: 4071: 3986: 3971: 3745: 3662: 3392: 3236: 3152: 3050: 2274: 2215: 2124: 2094: 2066: 1948: 1883: 1834: 1780: 1741: 1675: 1603: 1567: 837: 650: 613: 580: 562: 540: 451: 405: 397: 207: 7714:"? Do you base best on usage in reliable sources or on the rules in the MOS? -- 6800:

raises a very valid point. Professionals are worth experts, let's not act like

2513:

That said, using another style guide in refinements to the MoS can be helpful. —

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8700: 8673: 8616: 8608: 8507: 8428: 8409: 8372: 8302: 8270: 7932: 7897: 7873: 7610: 6805: 6645: 6572: 6291: 6277: 6232:

as the formal breed name. And it would prevent us using "Calabrese Horse" for

6219: 6201: 5839: 5799: 5499:

breed names in WP article titles are nouns, so this may be slightly off-topic.

5477: 4819: 4369: 4148: 4091: 4038: 4017: 4003: 3982: 3958: 3928: 3890: 3861: 3858:

There is considerable dispute over the correct use of the adjective "American."

3829: 3793: 3675: 3658: 3644: 3600: 3551: 3513: 2462: 2231: 2203: 2140: 2109: 2048:

should be restored, as should a description of inside punctuation for contrast.

1990: 1895: 1875: 1846: 1807: 1761: 1708: 1691: 1656: 1639: 1619: 1557:

I also think it might be helpful to re-order the text a bit to make it clearer

1451: 1128: 991: 905: 891: 628: 513: 485: 427: 380: 7925:, even refusing to fix the date of the speech itself, which is still wrong. — 6154:

OED is about 50 years outdated on this one; we have a well-sourced article at

5062:

policy clearly tells us to use natural disambiguation over parenthetical, and

4887:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Animals, plants, and other organisms

3533:

LQ; that's the North American style that is expressly forbidden on Knowledge.

2510:

a style, and this inherently will be done via a consensus between the editors.

1732:

quotation marks, whether or not they are part of the original quoted material.

8734: 8726: 8417: 8342: 7801: 7719: 7653: 7614: 7524: 7465: 7431: 7382: 7349: 7314: 7282: 7263: 7251: 6962: 6919: 6891: 6879: 6860: 6779: 6771: 6727: 6528: 6423:; we're all used to seeing breed names capitalized at least some of the time. 6106: 6097: 6074: 5858: 5854: 5732: 5347: 5055: 4835:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?

4740: 4675: 4622: 4485: 3305: 2987: 2973: 2881: 2843: 2789: 2752: 2719: 2683: 2658: 2631: 2614: 2360: 2227: 2187: 2108:

on this last year. Are there any new arguments that weren't brought up then?

1972: 1802: 1319: 1234: 1102: 1085: 977: 484:"== ".. seem to me, on their own, to make new sections, stand out just fine. 230: 168: 164: 8672:

No, there isn't. That you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what

8360:

So we currently recommend that you do not modify these writing systems. The

4935:: It's more complicated for breeds than for species names. Deets in a sec. 2093:

was the section on 28 May before the changes began. It seems clearer to me.

7908: 7851: 7519:

its insertion into the MOS where there was consensus for the inclusion. --

7094:

in scholar tends to support hyphen usage with intermittent usage of hyphens

6723: 6678: 6674: 6662: 6586: 6427: 6365: 6237: 6141: 6093: 5976: 5823: 5709: 5653: 5649: 5602: 5587: 5515: 5500: 5427: 5411: 5343: 5089: 5027: 4916: 4894: 4617:, it is bigger than a single article or project, so should be discussed at 4365: 3771:

Why would you quote two sentences inline? Use a pull quote. Granted, not

1476: 1424: 1386: 1230: 1111:; most (but not all) other cases are like "white house" vs. "White House". 156:"this shortcut has been very seldom used for its original intended purpose" 120: 7154:

on web tends to support hyphen and dash usage with a few commas and spaces

6550: 5634:

or the standard printed reference work: Valerie Porter, Ian Mason (2002).

8659: 8658:

Last time I checked, the Russians did/do not speak a variant of English.

8591: 8537: 8516: 8488: 8393: 6626: 6606: 5819: 5657: 5311: 5085: 5081: 5071: 5067: 5051: 2609:

comma is used to represent the stop where what follows is "such words as

2303: 1108: 183: 115: 7076:

in scholar tends to support hyphen usage and in one case a double hyphen

5979:, the purpose of article titles is to identify the article subject, not 5963:

B) Some may not understand the distinction between names of the format "

1333:(23 if you count "American"). They've had their fill, full stops aside. 779:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Foreign spelling below English name

8098: 7985: 7541: 7480: 7422: 7404: 6616: 5182: 3754:

John said, "That dog is obedient. He also said that the dog is gentle."

1797:

hot issue, and big changes should be discussed first. I pointed you to

1599: 1563: 1446:) are already covered in the existing wording. Singling out all of the 3629:

the quotation marks and the point closing the main sentence omitted."

2548:

According to John, some dog breeds are "not obedient," but others are.

7927: 7892: 7868: 7835: 7430:

Shakespearean English so as to appear more educated. Its nonsense.

6817: 6524: 6193: 5803: 5186: 4815: 4451: 4447: 3082:

calls this a North American practice,(2004, p.454) and my edition of

2544:

Some dog breeds are obedient, and others are gentle but not obedient.

601:

A wikilink inside a tooltip is not necessary. John F. Kennedy said "

8441:

1. It is possible for five guys to be wrong and one guy to be right.

4928:

Links refactored by SMcCandlish, after move of RfC from MOS subpage.

976:(scientific) meaning of the term, and not just any kind of "group". 7797: 7715: 7520: 7130:

in scholar tends to support hyphen and dash usage with a few commas

6981: 6775: 6392: 6301:

is: Use the formal breed name, avoid capitalization otherwise, use

6155: 6039: 5936: 5779: 5775: 4671: 4481: 3372: 3301: 1472: 1378: 1315: 899: 8295:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 22#Glossary templates

5636:

Mason's world dictionary of livestock breeds, types, and varieties

5260:. It'll make the wording less repetitive and also less subject to 4350:

Yes, that much closer to what I would expect to see on Knowledge!

1127:

Yep. The fastest route to that result is to use the full phrase "

8102: 7635:

Google books show an overwhelming trend for the use of the hyphen

7262:

12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC) updating with Google scholar results

6370: 5346:

violence statistics, rather than just mentioning the senator has

5334:

proper names, to be more precise, and those that are not usually

1419: 1398: 1382: 211: 7110:"Christmas Eve-New Year's Day" OR "Christmas Eve–New Year's Day" 7104:"Christmas Eve-New Year's Day" OR "Christmas Eve–New Year's Day" 7098:"Christmas Eve-New Year's Day" OR "Christmas Eve–New Year's Day" 6059:

in case there is a specific (notable) chicken named "Yokohama").

5838:

is capitalized, after the first character, only where published

5124:

contradicts itself on this, suggesting lower case, but showing "

2139:

problem with the style and past consensus more than the wording.

1971:

That would accurately guide editors on what actual practice is.

8182: 6895: 6516: 5623: 4320:

Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "The Boss," wrote "American Skin."

2805:

Source material: "It cannot be done; we must give up the task."

2183:

so we need to be sure that anything we cite is uncontroversial.

1828:

It was in there a long time (for as long as I recall), and was

1738:

New Hart's Rules: The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors

144:"Don't "However" a position in the middle of stating its case." 7038:"pp. 100-101" OR "pp. 100–101" OR "pp 100-101" OR "pp 100–101" 7032:"pp. 100-101" OR "pp. 100–101" OR "pp 100-101" OR "pp 100–101" 7026:"pp. 100-101" OR "pp. 100–101" OR "pp 100-101" OR "pp 100–101" 5845:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms

5652:(correct Italian capitalisation, the name of the breed) or at 5181:

Shepherds". Grammatically, breed names are most often used as

4879:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms

4244:

What did you have in mind? (If you're referring to the use of

4029:

Wow — having trouble getting this quite right. Actually, you

3001:

it stands. It would be nice to clarify the position on this. —

5835: 5795: 5521: 5287:(and a few who will fight them to the death that it's really 1618:

just likely to create the exact same debates all over again.

1450:

exceptions to the general rule is probably instruction creep.

932: 703:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11#Template:Bxtn

8299:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 20#Template:Gbq

6047:

That said... I do think it makes sense to reserve the form:

2648:

You've quoted half a sentence, though. The full sentence is

708:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11#Template:Mxt

698:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 11#Template:Bxt

609:".) Just hover your mouse cursor over the underdotted text. 8093:

The topic of this section is ranges in compound modifiers.

7822:

Is removing false starts from a transcript "akin to lying"?

6609:. *Chicken: A little better; Ameraucana, Dominique chicken. 6272: 5798:

of domesticated animal is capitalized only where published

1704:

I think this was the last discussion to attempt consensus:

8515:

strength of ties -- it's really an all or nothing issue.--

8105:

are used "n ranges that might otherwise be expressed with

7756:

they're editorially expedient; that's just a coincidence.

7652:

sites, that uses a dash we end up looking pretty stupid.

7538:

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

4964:

Have to hear what McCandlish is talking about to be sure.

3643:

I'm not talking about Fowler. I'm talking about logic. --

1329:

Sounds fair enough. That one section mentions the country

836:

But to be fair, it didn't have until late this afternoon.

8779:

Knowledge:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox

8368:

to include these writing systems without modification. --

8283: 7238:

in scholar tends to support hyphen and dash usage equally

5264:

if there's some spot where an exception wasn't mentioned.

4470:

Dory said: "Yes, I can read!", which gave Marlin an idea.

3810:, and LQ does not apply to scare quotes, i.e., you would 3785:

The main good uses for quotes, I think, are in order (1)

2767:"It cannot be done," he said; "we must give up the task." 1262: 683: 348:

with newlines (can it be "fixed" as it sets the tone?).

276: 110:

There is no mention of capitalizing animal breeds in the

7146:"2000-2010" OR "2000–2010" OR "2001-2010" OR "2001–2010" 7140:"2000-2010" OR "2000–2010" OR "2001-2010" OR "2001–2010" 7134:"2000-2010" OR "2000–2010" OR "2001-2010" OR "2001–2010" 7022:

in scholar tends to support hyphen, comma or slash usage

6934:

additional comment: Today I had the pleasure to see the

5664:(our article has both)? We don't have an article on the 4465:

Dory said: "Yes, I can read", which gave Marlin an idea.

3508:

Admittedly this becomes problematic when you're quoting

8781:

for an initiative regarding this recommended remedy. --

7963:

an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes

6269:

do you and I actually agree on something for a change?

5626:(the world reference agricultural breed database), the 3856:

Sure. In so-called "American style", how about this?

3527:"You can just always put the period outside the quote." 8615:

the existing variety, as pointed out by Yaksar above.

7058:

in scholar tends to support hyphen and then dash usage

6894:

is not a pigeon from Lahore, in fact it is unknown in

6659:

refusing to change one's mind in the face of the facts

6426:

But if each wikiproject wants to keep pretending that

3391:

If you like the danglers, at least you're consistent!

3049:

alternative style (commas and periods always inside).

1894:

currently illustrates what you say needs illustrating.

1418:

There are two reasons that wasn't clear to me. First,

777:

I've just replied to your near-identical question, at

739:

Infobox titles - both English and non-latin spellings?

6411:. Hardly anyone has this kind of "WTF?" reaction to 3814:

under any circumstances include a full stop in them.

8611:, and in the absence of said tie, the default is to 6026:

it. I don't see any significant difference between

306:(Not on topic?:) Preferred format of section titles? 152:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Semicolon before "however"

7112:

in scholar tends to support spaces and commas usage

6066:be over done. And when it rises to the level of a 5923:. Do not use it when names are unique enough to be 5869:, as reliable sources do; avoid constructions like 5552:

Grammar won't help with the names of animal breeds.

7921:The user has apparently ignored my suggestions at 6110:"let chaos reign" when it comes to animal breeds. 5280:stuff and the breeds cases aren't very comparable. 4726:I have submitted a proposal to promote entries on 4667:birthplace and deathplace parameters? I doubt it. 2894:Here's one that took me about 10 minutes to find: 2335:suggests, and limit this section in perpetuity to 7202:in scholar tends to support slash or hyphen usage 7184:in scholar tends to support hyphen and dash usage 7166:in scholar tends to support hyphen and dash usage 7148:in scholar tends to support dash and hyphen usage 7106:got no relevant results - mainly commas or spaces 6859:per nom. See my response to DeistCosmos above. 5338:one. This means most will be capitalized, anyway. 4619:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#The_List_Key 7196:in books tends to support slash or hyphen usage 6804:and declare that experts are all full of crap. 5189:(as in "The German Shepherd is a reliable dog"). 1578:Knowledge:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity 265:RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? 7040:in scholar gives no directly assessable results 6090:extant policies/guidelines and reliable sources 6022:My take on this issue is that we are seriously 5174:most breed names are proper names to begin with 7226:on web tends to support space or hyphen usage 7190:on web tends to support slash or hyphen usage 7118:on web tends to support hyphen and dash usage 4193:rule, and move on. MOS is too long as it is. 3927:on the Internet almost since the beginning. -- 1969:Meanwhile you can go back to writing articles. 1740:, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 155–156. 8749:Knowledge:Reference desk/Language#Punctuation 7220:in scholar supports hyphen use (single usage) 4871:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Capitalization 4833:Opinions are needed on the following matter: 2104:Okay, that's two of you. There was a massive 1736:From "in contrast," sourced to R. M. Ritter, 8773:Remedy six of the infoboxes arbitration case 7984:Quite so. I've changed "wife" to "partner". 4608:The Key to lists. No style guideline exists. 4033:directly quoting Rational, whereas you were 1274:Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option 994:like most sources and like our own article. 7882:Several examples of things that are simply 5036:argument about that is a different matter.) 4248:characters, I don't think it's a problem.) 2440:We need not "follow a multitude to do evil" 1540:We need not "follow a multitude to do evil" 1233:which should overrule any other concern. 8747:Punctuation styles are being discussed at 8289:Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere. 4561:. I would appreciate anyone commenting at 4557:to be a text summary and list overview of 4380:if you want a Clapton solo composition. -- 2769:, which is the example that Fowler gives? 1268:Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere. 1252:Discussions on italicization of quotations 689:Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere. 343:Quotations, titles of books and articles, 327:Quotations, titles of books and articles, 8007:across different varieties of English). — 7232:in books marginally supports hyphen usage 6882:is a pigeon(breed) from the city Modena. 6509:is but I submit not many would recognize: 4877:nouns within a breed name. Should 1) the 4262:It's not the characters per se, it's the 2765:How is this syntactically distinct from: 1756:. If you want it returned please discuss 1576:The capitalization issue is discussed in 282:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 214:if it gets changed back the way it was. — 8412:means. And his assertion that following 5296: 5047:natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation 4807:Interesting discussion concerning ENGVAR 4336:Is this more like what you had in mind? 1801:and you should also consider talking to 8452:pilot, then the article doesn't have a 8301:), as the outcome will strongly affect 7381:in the face of common use of grammar. 7244:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7178:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7160:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7142:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7124:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7088:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7070:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7052:in books tends to support hyphen usage 7034:in books tends to support hyphen usage 6375:when they want something that conflicts 5875:. Use the common name of the species ( 4056:I'm not sure how you're using the word 1307:Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms 1278:Template talk:Qq#Italicization disputed 602: 14: 8448:3. If the subject of the article is a 7016:in books tends to support hyphen usage 6364:I'd be fine if this were considered a 5971:". This doesn't matter, however; per 5814:(and conforming, more concise edit to 5030:discussions about such article titles) 4812:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Video games 2392:(or absence from) the quoted material. 1962:You know... if policy/guidance really 1525:(or absence from) the quoted material. 337:===<span id="ExternException" : --> 321:===<span id="ExternException" : --> 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 8723:Franconia–Springfield (WMATA station) 7241:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7208:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7172:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7136:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7100:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7082:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7064:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7046:on web tends to support hyphen usage 7028:on web tends to support hyphen usage 5556:English species names as proper names 4559:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout 4529:WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits 3492:It seems to me that you don't really 3086:calls it a US practice.(2005, p.155) 2423:Do not follow a multitude to do evil. 2390:maintains their original positions in 2134:Well, I don't think that a name like 1534:Do not follow a multitude to do evil. 1523:maintains their original positions in 1225:that it is the lowest ranked item in 886:I object to the insertion of ICNCP's 394:There are no particular preferences. 7164:"24-26 December" OR "24–26 December" 7158:"24-26 December" OR "24–26 December" 7152:"24-26 December" OR "24–26 December" 7128:"24-26 December" OR "24–26 December" 7122:"24-26 December" OR "24–26 December" 7116:"24-26 December" OR "24–26 December" 7092:"200-250 people" OR "200–250 people" 7086:"200-250 people" OR "200–250 people" 7080:"200-250 people" OR "200–250 people" 7010:on web tends to support hyphen usage 5258:do not capitalise (aside from the ]) 5100:? In most cases the answer is "no". 4891:Knowledge:Naming conventions (fauna) 2459:"maintains their original positions" 25: 8386:Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein 8273:'s templates nominated for deletion 6959:Talk:Dutch Landrace#Landrace breeds 6107:"my project, my articles, my names" 6062:Consistency is a good goal, but it 5114:are composed of adjectival forms of 202:shortcut, although it appears that 23: 7585:And it's perhaps worth adding the 7056:"10-15 percent" OR "10–15 percent" 7050:"10-15 percent" OR "10–15 percent" 7044:"10-15 percent" OR "10–15 percent" 6886:is a breed of English origin. The 6677:(the wikiproject challenged it as 6599:Belgian Shepherd Dog (Groenendael) 6557:, and they are all over the place. 5447:(who has never been to any of the 5020:as promised above: See outline at 3750:John said, "that dog is obedient." 243:That hatnote is a nice addition. — 24: 8801: 8769:and 22:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 8725:, named after the communities of 7848:Standards for editing transcripts 7330:Well, there was no consensus for 5778:(with conforming instructions at 5360:It's also taken years (still not 5026:(see the large number of ongoing 4859:RfC - Animal breeds in lower case 4829:Is close paraphrasing acceptable? 4010:) 01:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3806:Italics are more appropriate for 2546:, and we quote the last portion: 114:, but a group of editors over at 8278: 6603:Belgian Shepherd Dog (Laekenois) 6535:as much or to capitalize "goat". 6299:appropriate answer for Knowledge 5834:An article about a domesticated 4864: 3080:Cambridge Guide to English Usage 1257: 744: 678: 624:and 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 271: 29: 8341:은 좋다 rather than 해커스 토익은 좋다 ? 7200:"boyfriend–girlfriend problems" 7194:"boyfriend–girlfriend problems" 7188:"boyfriend–girlfriend problems" 6642:Partial oppose, partial support 4324:Eric Clapton, nicknamed "God", 890:use of capitalized "Group" for 106:Capitalization of animal breeds 8717:Endash in metro station names? 8332:Book titles in foreign scripts 7609:the hyphen. An equivalent to 7214:in books supports hyphen usage 7074:"1914-18 war" OR "1914–18 war" 7068:"1914-18 war" OR "1914–18 war" 7062:"1914-18 war" OR "1914–18 war" 6595:Villanuco de Las Encartaciones 6593:(actual name per references), 4824:21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 4712:23:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 4680:16:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 4631:01:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 4602:13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4579:11:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4541:02:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4390:18:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4360:18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4346:16:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4310:19:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4296:19:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4281:15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 4258:02:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 4239:16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4172:14:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4157:09:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4135:07:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4100:01:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4077:01:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4047:01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4026:01:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3992:01:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3977:01:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3937:01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3922:00:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3899:00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3885:00:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3870:23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3852:23:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3838:23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3824:23:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3802:23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3766:22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3684:22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3668:22:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3653:22:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3639:22:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3609:22:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3578:21:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3560:21:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3543:21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3522:21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3488:21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3435: 3398:22:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3310:21:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3242:20:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3178:20:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3158:20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3096:19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3074:16:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3056:16:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3006:23:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2996:23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2982:22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2907:18:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 2890:17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 2872:00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 2852:17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 2822:00:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 2798:00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 2779:23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2761:23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2747:22:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2728:22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2710:21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2692:21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2677:19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2667:16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2644:00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2623:22:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2602:21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2593:20:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2574:19:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2560:17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2537:16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2518:16:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2485:16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2471:16:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2452:15:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2369:22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2350:18:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2321:17:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2290:17:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2268:15:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2240:15:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2221:14:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2196:00:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2149:00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2130:00:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2118:00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2100:00:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2072:00:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2027:00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 1999:00:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 1981:23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1954:23:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1939:22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1904:16:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 1889:16:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 1855:00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 1840:23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1816:22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1786:22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1770:22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1747:22:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1717:22:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1700:22:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1681:22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1665:21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1648:21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1628:21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1608:23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1590:21:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1572:21:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1552:17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1373:Ampersands in section headings 554:One possibility is the use of 389:09:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 301:22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 253:15:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 239:08:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 224:23:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 177:14:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 129:15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 7236:"New York–Los Angeles flight" 7230:"New York–Los Angeles flight" 7224:"New York–Los Angeles flight" 6196:). A classic example is the 4636:NOTUSA in template parameters 1280:for some related discussion. 8791:13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) 8767:22:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC) 8738:08:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 8709:23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8668:23:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8655:There is every need for rfc. 8651:20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8625:22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8600:19:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8576:15:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8544:00:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8523:00:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8497:23:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 8474:17:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 8437:22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 8402:17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 8379:10:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8351:09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 8327:18:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 8264:10:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 8243:15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 8225:10:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 8198:23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 8167:12:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 8139:01:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 8089:Ranges in compound modifiers 8079:09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 8053:17:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 8033:17:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 8017:15:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 7998:01:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 7979:01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 7937:00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 7917:00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 7902:16:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 7878:16:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 7860:16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 7806:13:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 7778:21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 7724:11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 7691:21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 7665:16:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 7647:17:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 7626:14:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 7600:15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7577:15:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7529:11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 7443:15:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 7275:14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 6971:22:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 6928:20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 6842:21:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 6813:07:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 6605:(Belgian Shepherd Dog), and 6531:. There is some consistency 6042:(such as the city in Japan). 5810:Plus a conforming change to 5762:22:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 5726:16:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 5690:16:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 5668:; when we do, will it be at 5354:directly contradicts itself. 4517:11:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 4490:12:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 4215:11:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 3619:logical quotation, what you 3594:logical quotation, what you 1503:02:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 1482:00:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 1460:23:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1430:21:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1413:21:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1392:18:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1367:12:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1341:11:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 1324:10:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 1302:11:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 1212:22:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 872:00:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 846:21:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 832:20:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 734:00:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 7: 7832:a post on Jimbo's talk page 7790:WP:Specialist style fallacy 7749:WP:Specialist style fallacy 7550:05:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 7514:23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7493:07:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7474:03:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7417:01:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7394:15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 7376:14:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 7361:14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 7344:13:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 7326:13:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 7301:13:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 6869:04:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 6788:04:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 6760:04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 6739:15:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 6709:04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 6653:23:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 6635:23:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 6523:but let's use parenthesis, 6484:09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 6457:04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 6353:16:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 6328:05:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 6285:18:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 6263:08:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 6209:00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 6181:21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 6150:13:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 6132:21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 6083:12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 6017:10:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 5975:it is good enough, and per 5615:22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 5596:14:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5568:08:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5532:04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5509:20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 5485:19:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 5467:16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 5420:15:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 5397:11:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 5223:08:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 5150:05:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 5107:WP:Specialist style fallacy 5009:10:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4972:05:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4957:05:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4925:19:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 4903:19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 4854:20:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 4797:23:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 4783:23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 4752:15:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 4422:13:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 4408:21:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1246:13:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 1172:17:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 1153:20:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1121:17:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 1094:17:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1073:20:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1035:16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1016:20:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 986:12:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 963:11:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 802:08:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 772:08:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 659:01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 637:23:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 622:15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 589:05:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 571:05:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 549:00:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 522:11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 494:10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 463:15:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 436:14:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 417:11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 339:Quotations, titles, etc.=== 323:Quotations, titles, etc.=== 167:acronym for thread mode. -- 140:Knowledge:Avoid thread mode 10: 8806: 8639:WikiProject A-class review 8276: 6890:is the Italian breed. The 6380:across all relevant fields 5638:. Oxford; New York: CABI. 5320:Proper_Name Something_else 4862: 4364:Adjust that for accuracy; 4140:opportune course to take". 1255: 927:Having it actually appear 742: 676: 269: 154:last year explaining that 8681:else is a pack of idiots. 7218:"Paris–Montpellier route" 7212:"Paris–Montpellier route" 7206:"Paris–Montpellier route" 6977:antiquated use of dashes? 6957:. I was more specific on 6391:concerns. It's more that 5451:), I know this, and as a 4933:Oppose, at least for now. 4756:Enemies such as the BBC? 4546:Please review changes at 1752:Someone removed it after 781:Please don't multi-post. 138:This used to redirect to 7182:"78-89 mm" OR "78–89 mm" 7176:"78-89 mm" OR "78–89 mm" 7170:"78-89 mm" OR "78–89 mm" 7020:"hand-eye" OR "hand–eye" 7014:"hand-eye" OR "hand–eye" 7008:"hand-eye" OR "hand–eye" 6615:: Jacobin (pigeon), and 6036:Yokohama (chicken breed) 5185:but can also be used as 4913:specialist style fallacy 1806:consensus for that text. 1049:inside a scientific name 810:parameter for a reason. 325:{{see also|WP:MOSQUOTE}} 6940:Danish Landrace (sheep) 6555:Armenian Semicoarsewool 5867:Netherland Dwarf rabbit 5678:List of chicken colours 5122:Chicago Manual of Style 5040:The issues usually are: 4883:Common names subsection 4565:on the changes I made. 4322:for American style and 3910:Chicago Manual of Style 3787:use–mention distinction 1929:."(original emphasis). 1920:I think that the line, 1799:this earlier discussion 8753:21:55, 5 November 2014 7826:There is a discussion 7794:talk page of the essay 6938:, that was moved from 6575:, and the more renown 6533:not to use parenthesis 6417:American Quarter Horse 6230:American Quarter Horse 6226:American Quarter Horse 6198:American Quarter Horse 5941: 5917:German Red Pied cattle 5905:American Quarter Horse 5850:natural disambiguation 5808: 5094:American Quarter Horse 4841:to that discussion is 4474: 4335: 3967: 2672:interrupting clause. — 2654: 2425: 2394: 1927:according to the sense 1734: 1536: 1527: 1272:I've opened an RfC at 925: 643:John F. Kennedy said " 8536:the original style.-- 7886:with the transcript: 6954:a very uncommon name. 6944:Danish Landrace sheep 6936:Danish Landrace sheep 6591:Australian Cattle Dog 6561:List of cattle breeds 6051:for articles about a 5931:, and not confusing: 5832: 5792: 5718:Justlettersandnumbers 5682:Justlettersandnumbers 4527:See discussion here: 4457: 4317: 3963: 3808:"mention distinction" 2649: 2421: 2386: 1729: 1532: 1519: 896: 534:Quotes and wiki links 42:of past discussions. 8687:Japanese battleship 6952:Dutch Landrace sheep 6904:Talk:Strasser pigeon 6601:(Belgian Sheepdog), 5921:Aksai Black Pied pig 5901:Norwegian Forest Cat 5818:), also grounded in 5770:Alternative proposal 5297:#Alterantie proposal 5105:I wrote most of the 5098:Norwegian Forest Cat 4909:Support as nominator 3985:because I mistyped. 3746:redundant full stops 3657:(ec) That isn't LQ, 2860:the current examples 2808:Possible quotation: 1754:months of discussion 882:Objection to "Group" 673:MOS templates at TfD 645:Ich bin ein Berliner 607:Ich bin ein Berliner 603:Ich bin ein Berliner 8743:Logical punctuation 8364:templates now have 7289:search the archives 6948:Dutch Landrace goat 6912:Modern Game chicken 6409:obviously incorrect 5913:English Merino cavy 5909:Peppin Merino sheep 5872:Romagnola (chicken) 5788:WP:Reliable sources 5457:assistant professor 5289:German Shepherd dog 5285:German Shepherd Dog 5274:WP:WikiProject Cats 5197:National Geographic 1489:just one more thing 8556:American English, 8423:Dapi, you already 6569:Blonde d'Aquitaine 6057:Yokohama (chicken) 5990:understand that a 4584:Someone asked for 4327: 4188:For the record, I 3529:That is decidedly 919:Cynara cardunculus 806:The infobox has a 756:Peangtarn Plipuech 8297:(and the related 6986:naming an article 6916:Black pied cattle 6667:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 6577:Hereford (cattle) 6521:Toggenburg (goat) 6432:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 6102:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 5933:Wessex Saddleback 5737:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 5632:CAB International 5370: 5369: 5330:), so a majority 5304:are intrinsically 4737: 4376:Wonderful Tonight 4372:. Better go with 4325: 4075: 4049: 3990: 3975: 3666: 3396: 3240: 3156: 3054: 2466:E L A Q U E A T E 2235:E L A Q U E A T E 2219: 2144:E L A Q U E A T E 2128: 2113:E L A Q U E A T E 2098: 2070: 2015: 1994:E L A Q U E A T E 1989: 1983: 1952: 1899:E L A Q U E A T E 1887: 1850:E L A Q U E A T E 1838: 1830:removed on 1 June 1811:E L A Q U E A T E 1784: 1765:E L A Q U E A T E 1745: 1712:E L A Q U E A T E 1695:E L A Q U E A T E 1679: 1660:E L A Q U E A T E 1643:E L A Q U E A T E 1623:E L A Q U E A T E 1509:Logical quotation 1480: 1455:E L A Q U E A T E 1428: 1390: 1377:I just read both 333:==General notes== 319:==General notes== 150:redirected it to 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 8797: 8783:Francis Schonken 8697:English-speaking 8377: 8367: 8362:Citation Style 1 8325: 8290: 8282: 8281: 8223: 8165: 8077: 8025:boss, is (s)he? 7995: 7990: 7953:issue in example 7776: 7689: 7662: 7636: 7623: 7575: 7507: 7490: 7485: 7440: 7427: 7414: 7409: 7391: 7358: 7323: 7311: 7286: 7272: 7260: 6996:does not modify 6908:Sebright chicken 6888:Triganino Modena 6840: 6808: 6799: 6736: 6707: 6648: 6565:Adamawa (cattle) 6543:Acıpayam (sheep) 6468: 6455: 6421:Rhode Island Red 6413:Golden Retriever 6363: 6338: 6326: 6295: 6280: 6261: 6223: 6204: 6179: 6130: 6032:Yokohama chicken 6028:Yokohama Chicken 6015: 5992:Yokohama chicken 5874: 5863:Blue Grey cattle 5784:WP:Verifiability 5760: 5606: 5584: 5553: 5550: 5519: 5497: 5480: 5438: 5431: 5395: 5324:Australian White 5259: 5254:MOS:STANDARDCAPS 5241: 5240: 5233: 5148: 5126:Rhode Island Red 5007: 4986: 4962:Support, for now 4955: 4929: 4881:section, 2) the 4868: 4867: 4846:Rationalobserver 4776: 4773: 4770: 4767: 4764: 4761: 4749: 4734: 4725: 4719: 4705: 4702: 4699: 4696: 4693: 4690: 4664: 4658: 4652: 4646: 4599: 4594: 4576: 4571: 4533:Francis Schonken 4515: 4442:A partial revert 4352:Rationalobserver 4302:Rationalobserver 4273:Rationalobserver 4231:Rationalobserver 4213: 4074: 4015: 4011: 3989: 3974: 3914:Rationalobserver 3877:Rationalobserver 3859: 3844:Rationalobserver 3816:Rationalobserver 3758:Rationalobserver 3755: 3752:be correct, but 3751: 3665: 3631:Rationalobserver 3624: 3570:Rationalobserver 3535:Rationalobserver 3528: 3480:Rationalobserver 3442: 3439: 3395: 3239: 3170:Rationalobserver 3155: 3088:Rationalobserver 3084:New Hart's Rules 3066:Rationalobserver 3062:American English 3053: 2899:Rationalobserver 2864:Rationalobserver 2840: 2832: 2814:Rationalobserver 2811: 2771:Rationalobserver 2768: 2739:Rationalobserver 2735: 2702:Rationalobserver 2699: 2636:Rationalobserver 2585:Rationalobserver 2552:Rationalobserver 2549: 2545: 2529:Rationalobserver 2477:Rationalobserver 2468: 2467: 2444:Rationalobserver 2441: 2391: 2342:Rationalobserver 2278: 2237: 2236: 2218: 2177: 2171: 2146: 2145: 2136:J. R. R. Tolkien 2127: 2115: 2114: 2097: 2069: 2047: 2019:Rationalobserver 2009: 1996: 1995: 1987: 1961: 1951: 1931:Rationalobserver 1923: 1901: 1900: 1886: 1881: 1852: 1851: 1837: 1813: 1812: 1783: 1767: 1766: 1744: 1714: 1713: 1697: 1696: 1678: 1662: 1661: 1645: 1644: 1625: 1624: 1582:Rationalobserver 1544:Rationalobserver 1541: 1524: 1501: 1500: 1479: 1457: 1456: 1427: 1411: 1410: 1389: 1365: 1300: 1269: 1261: 1260: 1243: 1210: 1151: 1106: 1071: 1014: 961: 922: 915: 870: 830: 809: 800: 791: 787: 760:King of Thailand 748: 747: 732: 690: 682: 681: 604: 557: 461: 460: 415: 414: 401: 283: 275: 274: 148:User:BarrelProof 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 8805: 8804: 8800: 8799: 8798: 8796: 8795: 8794: 8775: 8745: 8719: 8389: 8369: 8365: 8334: 8323: 8306: 8291: 8288: 8286: 8279: 8275: 8221: 8204: 8163: 8146: 8091: 8075: 8058: 8005:MOS:COMMONALITY 7993: 7986: 7959:the boss's wife 7955: 7824: 7774: 7757: 7712:Comet Hale-Bopp 7708:Comet Hale–Bopp 7687: 7670: 7660: 7657: 7634: 7621: 7618: 7573: 7556: 7505: 7488: 7481: 7438: 7435: 7423: 7421:The trouble is 7412: 7405: 7389: 7386: 7356: 7353: 7321: 7318: 7305: 7280: 7270: 7267: 7258: 7255: 6984:states: "When 6979: 6900:Pheasant pigeon 6884:Modena (pigeon) 6838: 6821: 6806: 6793: 6734: 6731: 6705: 6688: 6684:WP:FAITACCOMPLI 6646: 6547:Afrikaner sheep 6507:German Sheppard 6503:Support per nom 6462: 6453: 6436: 6357: 6332: 6324: 6307: 6289: 6278: 6259: 6242: 6234:Calabrese horse 6217: 6202: 6177: 6160: 6128: 6111: 6049:X (animal type) 6013: 5996: 5970: 5966: 5870: 5840:breed standards 5800:breed standards 5782:), grounded in 5772: 5758: 5741: 5702: 5600: 5578: 5551: 5544: 5513: 5491: 5478: 5432: 5425: 5393: 5376: 5371: 5332:are composed of 5321: 5309: 5293:German Shepherd 5257: 5246: 5227: 5146: 5129: 5118:German shepherd 5115: 5112: 5045:Whether to use 5034:WP:FAITACCOMPLI 5005: 4988: 4980: 4953: 4936: 4927: 4874: 4873: 4865: 4861: 4831: 4809: 4774: 4771: 4768: 4765: 4762: 4759: 4747: 4744: 4723: 4717: 4716:In relation to 4703: 4700: 4697: 4694: 4691: 4688: 4662: 4656: 4650: 4644: 4638: 4610: 4597: 4590: 4574: 4567: 4551: 4525: 4513: 4496: 4444: 4223: 4211: 4194: 4013: 3981:Extra ping for 3857: 3753: 3749: 3742: 3614: 3526: 3446: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3390: 3389: 3382: 3381: 2838: 2830: 2809: 2766: 2733: 2697: 2547: 2543: 2465: 2463: 2439: 2389: 2272: 2234: 2232: 2226:Looking at the 2175: 2169: 2143: 2141: 2112: 2110: 2045: 1993: 1991: 1921: 1898: 1896: 1879: 1849: 1847: 1810: 1808: 1764: 1762: 1711: 1709: 1694: 1692: 1659: 1657: 1642: 1640: 1622: 1620: 1539: 1522: 1513:I noticed that 1511: 1496: 1492: 1454: 1452: 1406: 1402: 1375: 1363: 1346: 1309: 1298: 1281: 1270: 1267: 1265: 1258: 1254: 1241: 1238: 1208: 1191: 1184:WP:OFFICIALNAME 1149: 1132: 1131:" and link it. 1100: 1069: 1052: 1046: 1012: 995: 959: 942: 917: 914:'Red Delicious' 912:Malus domestica 910: 884: 868: 851: 828: 811: 807: 789: 783: 782: 751: 750: 745: 741: 730: 713: 691: 688: 686: 679: 675: 536: 456: 450: 410: 404: 395: 308: 284: 281: 279: 272: 268: 208:MOS:HOWEVERPUNC 136: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8803: 8774: 8771: 8756: 8744: 8741: 8718: 8715: 8714: 8713: 8712: 8711: 8693: 8682: 8656: 8653: 8635: 8634: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8627: 8605: 8581: 8553: 8547: 8546: 8526: 8525: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8499: 8479: 8458: 8446: 8442: 8421: 8420:is ridiculous. 8388: 8383: 8382: 8381: 8366:|script-title= 8358: 8333: 8330: 8321: 8303:MOS:GLOSSARIES 8277: 8274: 8271:MOS:GLOSSARIES 8268: 8267: 8266: 8251: 8250: 8249: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8231: 8219: 8186: 8170: 8169: 8161: 8127: 8126: 8125: 8121: 8114: 8090: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8081: 8073: 8040: 8039: 8038: 8037: 8036: 8035: 7954: 7947: 7946: 7945: 7944: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7823: 7820: 7819: 7818: 7817: 7816: 7815: 7814: 7813: 7812: 7811: 7810: 7809: 7808: 7772: 7755: 7740: 7700: 7699: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7695: 7694: 7693: 7685: 7658: 7629: 7628: 7619: 7613:should apply. 7605: 7604: 7603: 7602: 7580: 7579: 7571: 7552: 7534: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7498: 7497: 7496: 7495: 7460: 7459: 7458: 7457: 7456: 7455: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7451: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7447: 7446: 7445: 7436: 7387: 7354: 7333: 7319: 7268: 7256: 7250: 7246: 7245: 7242: 7239: 7233: 7227: 7221: 7215: 7209: 7203: 7197: 7191: 7185: 7179: 7173: 7167: 7161: 7155: 7149: 7143: 7137: 7131: 7125: 7119: 7113: 7107: 7101: 7095: 7089: 7083: 7077: 7071: 7065: 7059: 7053: 7047: 7041: 7035: 7029: 7023: 7017: 7011: 6978: 6975: 6974: 6973: 6931: 6930: 6872: 6871: 6853: 6852: 6851: 6850: 6849: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6844: 6836: 6763: 6762: 6746: 6745: 6744: 6743: 6742: 6741: 6732: 6714: 6713: 6712: 6711: 6703: 6660: 6638: 6637: 6621: 6620: 6610: 6580: 6573:Cachena cattle 6558: 6536: 6510: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6492: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6486: 6472: 6451: 6410: 6381: 6376: 6342: 6322: 6300: 6257: 6212: 6211: 6186: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6175: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6134: 6126: 6091: 6060: 6044: 6043: 6011: 5995: 5984: 5982: 5968: 5964: 5962: 5944: 5794:The name of a 5771: 5768: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5756: 5701: 5698: 5697: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5646: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5534: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5470: 5469: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5391: 5368: 5367: 5363: 5337: 5333: 5328:German Sheperd 5319: 5307: 5305: 5248: 5247: 5244: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5207: 5204: 5200: 5190: 5179: 5171: 5164: 5158: 5157: 5152: 5144: 5113: 5110: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5088:). This is a 5075: 5064:WP:COMMONSENSE 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5003: 4975: 4974: 4959: 4951: 4930: 4863: 4860: 4857: 4830: 4827: 4808: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4785: 4745: 4738: 4732: 4721:infobox person 4648:infobox person 4637: 4634: 4609: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4592:Blue Rasberry 4569:Blue Rasberry 4550: 4544: 4524: 4523:Latin incipits 4521: 4520: 4519: 4511: 4473: 4472: 4467: 4443: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4395: 4370:Cocaine (song) 4368:did not write 4362: 4315: 4222: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4209: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4147:the second. -- 4141: 4122: 4118: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4051: 4050: 4028: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3790: 3783: 3776: 3741: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3588: 3506: 3444: 3443: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3385: 3384: 3377: 3376: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3076: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2877: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2841: 2836: 2833: 2828: 2824: 2806: 2655: 2646: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2566: 2539: 2511: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2353: 2352: 2324: 2323: 2310: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2252: 2249: 2242: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2184: 2180: 2173: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2002: 2001: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1942: 1941: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1773: 1772: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1684: 1683: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1416: 1415: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1361: 1343: 1308: 1305: 1296: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1239: 1215: 1214: 1206: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1147: 1129:cultivar group 1125: 1124: 1123: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1067: 1050: 1044: 1038: 1037: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1010: 992:cultivar group 957: 930: 921:Scolymus Group 892:cultivar group 883: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 866: 826: 804: 743: 740: 737: 728: 711: 710: 705: 700: 677: 674: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 610: 594: 593: 592: 591: 574: 573: 559: 535: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 441: 440: 439: 438: 420: 419: 375: 374: 371: 367: 366: 363: 346: 340: 338:</span: --> 334: 326: 324: 322:</span: --> 320: 307: 304: 270: 267: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 204:WP:HOWEVERPUNC 200:WP:HOWEVERPUNC 192:WP:HOWEVERPUNC 135: 132: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8802: 8793: 8792: 8788: 8784: 8780: 8770: 8768: 8764: 8760: 8754: 8750: 8740: 8739: 8736: 8732: 8728: 8724: 8710: 8706: 8702: 8698: 8694: 8691: 8690: 8683: 8679: 8675: 8671: 8670: 8669: 8665: 8661: 8657: 8654: 8652: 8648: 8644: 8643:MisterBee1966 8640: 8636: 8626: 8622: 8618: 8614: 8610: 8606: 8603: 8602: 8601: 8597: 8593: 8589: 8585: 8582: 8579: 8578: 8577: 8573: 8569: 8564: 8559: 8554: 8551: 8550: 8549: 8548: 8545: 8542: 8539: 8535: 8530: 8529: 8528: 8527: 8524: 8521: 8518: 8514: 8509: 8506: 8505: 8498: 8494: 8490: 8485: 8480: 8477: 8476: 8475: 8471: 8467: 8462: 8459: 8455: 8451: 8447: 8443: 8440: 8439: 8438: 8434: 8430: 8426: 8422: 8419: 8415: 8411: 8406: 8405: 8404: 8403: 8399: 8395: 8387: 8380: 8376: 8375: 8374: 8363: 8359: 8355: 8354: 8353: 8352: 8348: 8344: 8340: 8329: 8328: 8319: 8316: 8313: 8311: 8304: 8300: 8296: 8285: 8272: 8265: 8261: 8257: 8256:Peter coxhead 8252: 8244: 8240: 8236: 8232: 8228: 8227: 8226: 8217: 8214: 8211: 8209: 8201: 8200: 8199: 8195: 8191: 8187: 8184: 8180: 8178: 8174: 8173: 8172: 8171: 8168: 8159: 8156: 8153: 8151: 8143: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8136: 8132: 8122: 8119: 8116:According to 8115: 8112: 8108: 8104: 8100: 8097:According to 8096: 8095: 8094: 8080: 8071: 8068: 8065: 8063: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8051: 8048: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8041: 8034: 8031: 8028: 8024: 8020: 8019: 8018: 8014: 8010: 8006: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7996: 7991: 7989: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7980: 7976: 7972: 7968: 7964: 7960: 7952: 7938: 7934: 7930: 7929: 7924: 7920: 7919: 7918: 7914: 7910: 7905: 7904: 7903: 7899: 7895: 7894: 7889: 7885: 7881: 7880: 7879: 7875: 7871: 7870: 7864: 7863: 7862: 7861: 7857: 7853: 7849: 7843: 7841: 7837: 7833: 7829: 7807: 7803: 7799: 7795: 7791: 7786: 7781: 7780: 7779: 7770: 7767: 7764: 7762: 7753: 7750: 7745: 7738: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7728: 7727: 7726: 7725: 7721: 7717: 7713: 7709: 7705: 7692: 7683: 7680: 7677: 7675: 7668: 7667: 7666: 7663: 7655: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7644: 7640: 7639:Peter coxhead 7633: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7627: 7624: 7616: 7612: 7607: 7606: 7601: 7597: 7593: 7592:Peter coxhead 7588: 7584: 7583: 7582: 7581: 7578: 7569: 7566: 7563: 7561: 7553: 7551: 7547: 7543: 7539: 7536: 7535: 7530: 7526: 7522: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7512: 7509: 7508: 7506:AgnosticAphid 7500: 7499: 7494: 7491: 7486: 7484: 7477: 7476: 7475: 7471: 7467: 7462: 7461: 7444: 7441: 7433: 7428: 7426: 7420: 7419: 7418: 7415: 7410: 7408: 7402: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7392: 7384: 7379: 7378: 7377: 7373: 7369: 7368:Peter coxhead 7364: 7363: 7362: 7359: 7351: 7347: 7346: 7345: 7341: 7337: 7336:Peter coxhead 7331: 7329: 7328: 7327: 7324: 7316: 7309: 7308:Peter coxhead 7304: 7303: 7302: 7298: 7294: 7293:Peter coxhead 7290: 7284: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7273: 7265: 7261: 7253: 7243: 7240: 7237: 7234: 7231: 7228: 7225: 7222: 7219: 7216: 7213: 7210: 7207: 7204: 7201: 7198: 7195: 7192: 7189: 7186: 7183: 7180: 7177: 7174: 7171: 7168: 7165: 7162: 7159: 7156: 7153: 7150: 7147: 7144: 7141: 7138: 7135: 7132: 7129: 7126: 7123: 7120: 7117: 7114: 7111: 7108: 7105: 7102: 7099: 7096: 7093: 7090: 7087: 7084: 7081: 7078: 7075: 7072: 7069: 7066: 7063: 7060: 7057: 7054: 7051: 7048: 7045: 7042: 7039: 7036: 7033: 7030: 7027: 7024: 7021: 7018: 7015: 7012: 7009: 7006: 7005: 7004: 7001: 6999: 6995: 6991: 6990:Eye–hand span 6987: 6983: 6972: 6968: 6964: 6960: 6956: 6953: 6949: 6945: 6941: 6937: 6933: 6932: 6929: 6925: 6921: 6917: 6913: 6909: 6905: 6901: 6897: 6893: 6892:Lahore pigeon 6889: 6885: 6881: 6880:Modena pigeon 6877: 6874: 6873: 6870: 6866: 6862: 6858: 6855: 6854: 6843: 6834: 6831: 6828: 6826: 6819: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6811: 6809: 6803: 6797: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6785: 6781: 6777: 6773: 6769: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6761: 6757: 6753: 6748: 6747: 6740: 6737: 6729: 6725: 6724:article title 6720: 6719: 6718: 6717: 6716: 6715: 6710: 6701: 6698: 6695: 6693: 6685: 6680: 6676: 6672: 6668: 6664: 6658: 6656: 6655: 6654: 6651: 6649: 6643: 6640: 6639: 6636: 6632: 6628: 6623: 6622: 6618: 6614: 6611: 6608: 6604: 6600: 6596: 6592: 6588: 6584: 6581: 6578: 6574: 6570: 6566: 6562: 6559: 6556: 6552: 6548: 6544: 6540: 6537: 6534: 6530: 6529:Damascus goat 6526: 6522: 6518: 6514: 6511: 6508: 6504: 6501: 6500: 6485: 6481: 6477: 6476:Peter coxhead 6470: 6466: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6449: 6446: 6443: 6441: 6433: 6429: 6424: 6422: 6418: 6414: 6408: 6404: 6401: 6394: 6390: 6386: 6385:WP:COMMONNAME 6379: 6374: 6372: 6367: 6361: 6360:Peter coxhead 6356: 6355: 6354: 6350: 6346: 6345:Peter coxhead 6340: 6336: 6331: 6330: 6329: 6320: 6317: 6314: 6312: 6304: 6298: 6293: 6288: 6287: 6286: 6283: 6281: 6274: 6270: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6255: 6252: 6249: 6247: 6239: 6235: 6231: 6227: 6221: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6210: 6207: 6205: 6199: 6195: 6191: 6188: 6187: 6182: 6173: 6170: 6167: 6165: 6157: 6153: 6152: 6151: 6147: 6143: 6139: 6138: 6133: 6124: 6121: 6118: 6116: 6108: 6103: 6099: 6095: 6089: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6080: 6076: 6072: 6070: 6065: 6061: 6058: 6054: 6050: 6046: 6045: 6041: 6037: 6033: 6029: 6025: 6024:over thinking 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6009: 6006: 6003: 6001: 5993: 5988: 5980: 5978: 5974: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5940: 5938: 5934: 5930: 5926: 5922: 5918: 5914: 5910: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5890: 5886: 5882: 5878: 5873: 5868: 5864: 5860: 5859:Himalayan cat 5856: 5855:Mustang horse 5852: 5851: 5846: 5841: 5837: 5831: 5829: 5826:, as well as 5825: 5821: 5817: 5813: 5807: 5805: 5801: 5797: 5791: 5789: 5785: 5781: 5777: 5763: 5754: 5751: 5748: 5746: 5738: 5734: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5723: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5707: 5704: 5703: 5700:Notification? 5691: 5687: 5683: 5679: 5675: 5671: 5667: 5663: 5659: 5655: 5651: 5647: 5644: 5643:9780851994307 5641: 5637: 5633: 5629: 5625: 5621: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5613: 5610: 5609:JerryFriedman 5604: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5582: 5581:JerryFriedman 5577: 5576: 5569: 5565: 5561: 5560:Peter coxhead 5557: 5548: 5547:JerryFriedman 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5533: 5530: 5527: 5526:JerryFriedman 5523: 5517: 5512: 5511: 5510: 5506: 5502: 5495: 5494:JerryFriedman 5490: 5486: 5483: 5481: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5468: 5465: 5462: 5461:JerryFriedman 5458: 5454: 5450: 5446: 5442: 5436: 5435:Peter coxhead 5429: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5408: 5400: 5398: 5389: 5386: 5383: 5381: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5366: 5361: 5358: 5355: 5353: 5349: 5348:Border Collie 5345: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5329: 5325: 5317: 5316:Plymouth Rock 5313: 5303: 5300: 5298: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5281: 5279: 5275: 5270: 5263: 5255: 5250: 5249: 5243: 5242: 5231: 5230:Peter coxhead 5226: 5225: 5224: 5220: 5216: 5215:Peter coxhead 5213: 5208: 5202: 5201: 5198: 5194: 5191: 5188: 5184: 5177: 5175: 5172: 5169: 5165: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5156: 5153: 5151: 5142: 5139: 5136: 5134: 5127: 5123: 5119: 5108: 5104: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5076: 5073: 5070:" not "had a 5069: 5065: 5061: 5057: 5056:Siamese (cat) 5053: 5049: 5048: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5038: 5035: 5031: 5029: 5023: 5019: 5016: 5015: 5010: 5001: 4998: 4995: 4993: 4984: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4973: 4970: 4967: 4963: 4960: 4958: 4949: 4946: 4943: 4941: 4934: 4931: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4889:, and 3) the 4888: 4884: 4880: 4872: 4856: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4784: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4750: 4742: 4739: 4733: 4729: 4728:"Citizenship" 4722: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4710: 4707: 4706: 4685:No means no. 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4668: 4666: 4661: 4654: 4649: 4641: 4633: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4603: 4600: 4595: 4593: 4587: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4577: 4572: 4570: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4549: 4543: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4518: 4509: 4506: 4503: 4501: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4478: 4471: 4468: 4466: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4456: 4453: 4449: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4396: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4377: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4334: 4332: 4330: 4321: 4316: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4216: 4207: 4204: 4201: 4199: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4078: 4073: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4059: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3988: 3984: 3979: 3978: 3973: 3966: 3962: 3960: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3788: 3784: 3781: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3747: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3622: 3618: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3586: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3504: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3438: 3434: 3399: 3394: 3388: 3380: 3374: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3243: 3238: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3154: 3147: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3052: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3007: 3004: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2878: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2837: 2834: 2829: 2825: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2807: 2804: 2803: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2647: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2607: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2572: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2540: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2509: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2393: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2326: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313:Peter coxhead 2308: 2305: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282:Peter coxhead 2276: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2243: 2241: 2238: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2217: 2211: 2207: 2205: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2174: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2150: 2147: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2116: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2073: 2068: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2013: 2012:edit conflict 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1965: 1955: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1919: 1918: 1905: 1902: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1885: 1877: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1856: 1853: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1836: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1817: 1814: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1787: 1782: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1743: 1739: 1733: 1728: 1718: 1715: 1706: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1677: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1663: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1518: 1516: 1504: 1499: 1495: 1494:SchreiberBike 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1469:SchreiberBike 1461: 1458: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1426: 1421: 1414: 1409: 1405: 1404:SchreiberBike 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1368: 1359: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1344: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1304: 1303: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1279: 1275: 1264: 1247: 1244: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180:WP:COMMONNAME 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1164:Peter coxhead 1154: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1113:Peter coxhead 1110: 1104: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1074: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1057: 1048: 1045:GroupNameHere 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027:Peter coxhead 1023: 1022: 1017: 1008: 1005: 1002: 1000: 993: 989: 988: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 966: 965: 964: 955: 952: 949: 947: 939: 934: 929:in MOS itself 928: 924: 920: 913: 908: 907: 902: 901: 895: 893: 889: 873: 864: 861: 858: 856: 849: 848: 847: 843: 839: 835: 834: 833: 824: 821: 818: 816: 808:|native_name= 805: 803: 799: 795: 790:Pigsonthewing 786: 780: 776: 775: 774: 773: 769: 765: 764:Fyunck(click) 761: 757: 736: 735: 726: 723: 720: 718: 709: 706: 704: 701: 699: 696: 695: 694: 685: 660: 656: 652: 648: 646: 640: 639: 638: 634: 630: 626: 625: 623: 619: 615: 611: 608: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 590: 586: 582: 578: 577: 576: 575: 572: 568: 564: 560: 553: 552: 551: 550: 546: 542: 523: 519: 515: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 495: 491: 487: 482: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 464: 459: 455: 454: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 437: 433: 429: 424: 423: 422: 421: 418: 413: 409: 408: 399: 393: 392: 391: 390: 386: 382: 378: 372: 369: 368: 364: 361: 360: 359: 356: 353: 349: 344: 341: 335: 331: 328: 317: 314: 310: 303: 302: 298: 297: 292: 289: 278: 266: 254: 250: 246: 242: 241: 240: 236: 232: 227: 226: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 179: 178: 174: 170: 166: 161: 160:eleven usages 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 131: 130: 126: 122: 117: 113: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 8776: 8751:(version of 8746: 8720: 8696: 8688: 8677: 8587: 8583: 8562: 8557: 8541:(let's chat) 8520:(let's chat) 8512: 8483: 8460: 8453: 8449: 8424: 8390: 8371: 8370: 8338: 8335: 8309: 8292: 8207: 8176: 8149: 8128: 8110: 8106: 8092: 8061: 8047:InedibleHulk 8027:InedibleHulk 8022: 7987: 7962: 7958: 7956: 7926: 7891: 7890:. Thanks. — 7883: 7867: 7844: 7825: 7785:WP:PERENNIAL 7760: 7744:WP:PERENNIAL 7701: 7673: 7559: 7503: 7482: 7424: 7406: 7400: 7247: 7002: 6997: 6993: 6980: 6951: 6947: 6943: 6875: 6856: 6824: 6691: 6641: 6587:Armant (dog) 6532: 6502: 6439: 6425: 6420: 6416: 6412: 6405: 6397: 6310: 6268: 6245: 6189: 6163: 6114: 6068: 6067: 6063: 6052: 6023: 5999: 5942: 5925:recognizable 5896: 5892: 5888: 5884: 5880: 5876: 5848: 5833: 5809: 5793: 5773: 5744: 5705: 5674:Black pewter 5670:Black Pewter 5666:Black Pewter 5654:Cinta Senese 5650:Cinta senese 5635: 5619: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5444: 5440: 5406: 5405: 5399: 5379: 5359: 5356: 5351: 5340: 5301: 5282: 5268: 5265: 5196: 5192: 5173: 5154: 5132: 5121: 5077: 5044: 5039: 5037: 5025: 5017: 4991: 4983:InedibleHulk 4966:InedibleHulk 4961: 4939: 4932: 4908: 4875: 4839:WP:Permalink 4832: 4810: 4757: 4686: 4669: 4642: 4639: 4611: 4591: 4568: 4552: 4526: 4499: 4479: 4475: 4469: 4464: 4458: 4445: 4373: 4366:Eric Clapton 4333:for British. 4328: 4323: 4319: 4318: 4267: 4263: 4246:Finding Nemo 4245: 4226: 4224: 4197: 4189: 4144: 4057: 4034: 4030: 3999: 3980: 3968: 3964: 3957: 3909: 3904: 3811: 3779: 3772: 3743: 3626: 3620: 3616: 3595: 3591: 3584: 3565: 3530: 3509: 3502: 3497: 3493: 3437: 3386: 3378: 3164: 3149: 3083: 3079: 3061: 2785: 2715: 2650: 2610: 2579: 2524: 2507: 2458: 2422: 2387: 2336: 2332: 2327: 2298: 2255: 2212: 2208: 2202: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1926: 1757: 1753: 1737: 1735: 1730: 1725: 1674:discussion? 1653: 1634: 1616: 1595: 1558: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1520: 1512: 1488: 1466: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1417: 1376: 1349: 1335:InedibleHulk 1330: 1311: 1310: 1284: 1271: 1221: 1194: 1161: 1135: 1055: 998: 973: 969: 945: 926: 918: 911: 904: 898: 897: 885: 854: 814: 798:Andy's edits 794:Talk to Andy 785:Andy Mabbett 752: 716: 712: 692: 642: 537: 480: 452: 406: 379: 376: 357: 354: 350: 345: 342: 336: 332: 329: 318: 315: 311: 309: 295: 291:Curly Turkey 285: 155: 143: 137: 109: 78: 43: 37: 8731:Springfield 8416:amounts to 8310:SMcCandlish 8293:Please see 8208:SMcCandlish 8177:SMcCandlish 8150:SMcCandlish 8113:": "20–30". 8062:SMcCandlish 8009:BarrelProof 7971:BarrelProof 7761:SMcCandlish 7704:SMcCandlish 7674:SMcCandlish 7560:SMcCandlish 6825:SMcCandlish 6796:DeistCosmos 6752:DeistCosmos 6692:SMcCandlish 6607:Billy (dog) 6541:. There is 6465:SMcCandlish 6440:SMcCandlish 6389:WP:CRITERIA 6335:SMcCandlish 6311:SMcCandlish 6246:SMcCandlish 6164:SMcCandlish 6115:SMcCandlish 6096:policy and 6000:SMcCandlish 5973:WP:DIFFCAPS 5969:Foo Bar Baz 5965:Foo Bar baz 5745:SMcCandlish 5714:SMcCandlish 5662:Black Molly 5658:Black molly 5380:SMcCandlish 5342:article on 5308:Proper_Name 5245:Detailia... 5183:count nouns 5133:SMcCandlish 5086:Siamese cat 5082:Siamese Cat 5068:Siamese cat 5052:Siamese cat 4992:SMcCandlish 4987:See below. 4940:SMcCandlish 4869:Moved from 4789:Vegaswikian 4736:continents. 4500:SMcCandlish 4414:Nat Gertler 4382:Nat Gertler 4198:SMcCandlish 2732:How about, 2696:How about, 1988:Too logical 1515:Slim Virgin 1350:SMcCandlish 1285:SMcCandlish 1227:WP:CRITERIA 1222:SMcCandlish 1195:SMcCandlish 1188:Ngrams show 1136:SMcCandlish 1109:proper name 1056:SMcCandlish 999:SMcCandlish 946:SMcCandlish 888:jargonistic 855:SMcCandlish 815:SMcCandlish 717:SMcCandlish 365:bla bla bla 263:Notice re: 245:BarrelProof 216:BarrelProof 184:MOS:HOWEVER 116:Talk:Brumby 98:Archive 165 90:Archive 163 85:Archive 162 79:Archive 161 73:Archive 160 68:Archive 159 60:Archive 155 36:This is an 8759:Wavelength 8568:Darkfrog24 8466:Darkfrog24 8445:Knowledge. 8235:Wavelength 8190:Wavelength 8131:Wavelength 8099:MOS:ENDASH 7840:Wikisource 7828:on my talk 7401:inter alia 7003:However: 6671:WP:BIRDCON 6617:Giant Runt 6400:WP:BIRDCON 6303:WP:NATURAL 6071:conformity 5994:was meant. 5987:WP:NATURAL 5959:WP:BIRDCON 5955:WP:MOSLIFE 5951:WP:MOSCAPS 5828:WP:NATURAL 5812:WP:NCFAUNA 5278:WP:BIRDCON 5187:mass nouns 5060:WP:NATURAL 4660:Persondata 4553:I changed 4400:Darkfrog24 4338:Darkfrog24 4331:"Cocaine". 4288:Darkfrog24 4250:Darkfrog24 4164:Darkfrog24 4127:Darkfrog24 4072:SlimVirgin 3987:SlimVirgin 3972:SlimVirgin 3663:SlimVirgin 3393:SlimVirgin 3237:SlimVirgin 3153:SlimVirgin 3051:SlimVirgin 2275:SlimVirgin 2216:SlimVirgin 2125:SlimVirgin 2095:SlimVirgin 2067:SlimVirgin 1949:SlimVirgin 1884:SlimVirgin 1835:SlimVirgin 1781:SlimVirgin 1742:SlimVirgin 1676:SlimVirgin 1635:guaranteed 1594:Thanks! I 1345:I concur. 838:Bagunceiro 651:Cesiumfrog 614:Wavelength 605:." (See " 581:Cesiumfrog 563:Wavelength 541:Cesiumfrog 188:WP:HOWEVER 158:. I count 134:WP:HOWEVER 8727:Franconia 8701:Parsecboy 8676:means is 8617:Parsecboy 8613:WP:RETAIN 8534:WP:RETAIN 8429:Parsecboy 8418:ownership 8414:WP:RETAIN 8373:Gadget850 8118:WP:HYPHEN 8103:en dashes 7967:WP:GENDER 7951:WP:GENDER 7949:Possible 6818:Straw man 6807:Montanabw 6647:Montanabw 6551:Alcarreña 6525:Boer goat 6292:Montanabw 6279:Montanabw 6220:Montanabw 6203:Montanabw 6194:Pintabian 5947:WP:NCCAPS 5816:WP:NCCAPS 5804:landraces 5628:thesaurus 5479:Montanabw 5453:white man 5262:WP:GAMING 4452:full stop 4448:full stop 4329:performed 4149:Trovatore 4092:Trovatore 4039:Trovatore 4018:Trovatore 4004:Trovatore 3983:Trovatore 3970:example. 3959:Trovatore 3929:Trovatore 3891:Trovatore 3862:Trovatore 3830:Trovatore 3794:Trovatore 3740:Arb break 3676:Trovatore 3659:Trovatore 3645:Trovatore 3601:Trovatore 3552:Trovatore 3514:Trovatore 3078:FWIW, my 2204:Elaqueate 1876:Elaqueate 990:Just use 629:oknazevad 514:comp.arch 486:comp.arch 428:comp.arch 381:comp.arch 8513:relative 8343:Kdammers 7654:Gregkaye 7615:Gregkaye 7466:Dicklyon 7432:Gregkaye 7383:Gregkaye 7350:Gregkaye 7315:Gregkaye 7283:Gregkaye 7264:Gregkaye 7252:Gregkaye 6982:MOS:DASH 6963:PigeonIP 6946:is like 6920:PigeonIP 6861:Dicklyon 6802:WP:RANDY 6780:Dicklyon 6776:MOS:CAPS 6728:Gregkaye 6393:MOS:LIFE 6156:Landrace 6075:Blueboar 6053:specific 6040:Yokohama 5937:Rosecomb 5830:policy: 5780:MOS:CAPS 5776:MOS:LIFE 5706:Question 5449:Hamptons 5441:American 5407:Comment: 5362:entirely 5344:Pit Bull 5299:, below. 5269:de facto 5155:Comments 4741:Gregkaye 4623:The-Pope 4586:the diff 4555:WP:ORDER 4548:WP:ORDER 4268:actually 4227:actually 4221:Examples 3510:multiple 3383:and this 2988:Formerip 2974:Dicklyon 2969:this one 2882:Formerip 2844:Formerip 2790:Formerip 2753:Formerip 2720:Formerip 2684:Formerip 2659:Formerip 2632:FormerIP 2615:Formerip 2361:Formerip 2333:actually 2248:English. 2188:Formerip 1973:Blueboar 1803:FormerIP 1473:MOS:HEAD 1444:AT&T 1379:MOS:HEAD 1331:21 times 1235:Gregkaye 1103:FormerIP 1086:Formerip 978:Blueboar 974:specific 900:Cultivar 749:Resolved 556:tooltips 296:¡gobble! 231:McGeddon 169:McGeddon 8689:Musashi 8674:WP:TIES 8609:WP:TIES 8508:WP:Ties 8461:However 8410:WP:TIES 8111:through 7994:(talk) 7909:Neotarf 7852:Neotarf 7754:because 7611:WP:UCRN 7489:(talk) 7413:(talk) 7287:if you 6992:(since 6857:Support 6471:general 6371:MOS:NUM 6341:styling 6142:Neotarf 5981:explain 5967:" and " 5929:precise 5847:. Use 5710:Krychek 5603:Krychek 5588:Krychek 5516:Krychek 5501:Krychek 5455:and an 5428:Krychek 5412:Krychek 5336:contain 5318:), not 5312:Samoyed 5291:), not 5072:Siamese 5054:" vs. " 5018:Details 4917:Krychek 4895:Krychek 4615:WT:CRIC 4264:content 4190:support 3617:perfect 3592:perfect 3503:meaning 3064:style. 3003:Quondum 2827:speech: 2786:he said 2716:he said 2674:Quondum 2611:he said 2599:Quondum 2571:Quondum 2515:Quondum 2328:Comment 2309:However 2304:mention 2299:Comment 2265:Quondum 1596:thought 1559:earlier 1477:voidxor 1440:R&B 1425:voidxor 1420:MOS:AMP 1399:MOS:AMP 1397:I read 1387:voidxor 1383:MOS:AMP 1182:trumps 1047:Group" 453:Stepho 407:Stepho 362:bla bla 212:seppuku 196:however 146:), but 121:Krychek 39:archive 8660:Dapi89 8592:Dapi89 8563:strong 8538:Yaksar 8517:Yaksar 8489:Dapi89 8454:direct 8450:German 8394:Dapi89 8339:해커스 토익 8183:syntax 8050:(talk) 8030:(talk) 7965:" per 7739:differ 7710:" or " 7332:change 7000:)..." 6896:Lahore 6878:: The 6876:Oppose 6772:WP:SSF 6627:Otr500 6613:Pigeon 6527:, and 6517:Beetal 6396:name". 6190:Oppose 6100:, and 6098:WP:MOS 6069:forced 5877:cattle 5733:WP:OWN 5624:DAD-IS 5620:Oppose 5612:(Talk) 5529:(Talk) 5464:(Talk) 5443:and a 4969:(talk) 4780:•talk• 4709:•talk• 4598:(talk) 4575:(talk) 4145:per se 3773:always 3627:inside 3621:should 3615:To do 3596:should 3590:To do 3585:quoted 3566:always 3146:ENGVAR 2228:WP:MOS 1338:(talk) 398:anchor 373:second 165:WP:ATM 7884:wrong 7542:-sche 6679:WP:MR 6675:WP:RM 6663:WP:AT 6539:Sheep 6513:Goats 6428:WP:AT 6366:WP:AT 6238:WP:AT 6094:WP:AT 5977:WP:AT 5897:swine 5893:hound 5881:sheep 5836:breed 5824:WP:RS 5796:breed 5522:Judah 5090:WP:RS 5028:WP:RM 4843:here. 4326:wrote 4058:logic 4000:omits 3812:never 3780:quote 2652:this. 2565:does. 1758:first 1600:Boson 1564:Boson 1231:WP:AT 933:ICNCP 906:Group 481:after 370:first 190:than 16:< 8787:talk 8777:See 8763:talk 8733:? -- 8729:and 8705:talk 8678:your 8664:talk 8647:talk 8621:talk 8596:talk 8588:were 8572:talk 8558:then 8493:talk 8484:That 8470:talk 8433:talk 8425:have 8398:talk 8347:talk 8260:talk 8239:talk 8194:talk 8135:talk 8013:talk 7988:Tony 7975:talk 7933:talk 7928:Cirt 7923:DIFF 7913:talk 7898:talk 7893:Cirt 7888:DIFF 7874:talk 7869:Cirt 7856:talk 7836:Cirt 7802:talk 7720:talk 7643:talk 7596:talk 7546:talk 7540:... 7525:talk 7511:talk 7483:Tony 7470:talk 7425:TONY 7407:Tony 7372:talk 7340:talk 7297:talk 6998:hand 6967:talk 6950:and 6924:talk 6865:talk 6784:talk 6756:talk 6665:and 6631:talk 6583:Dogs 6480:talk 6430:and 6349:talk 6273:AQHA 6146:talk 6079:talk 6034:and 5953:and 5919:and 5911:and 5889:fowl 5822:and 5820:WP:V 5786:and 5722:talk 5712:and 5708:for 5686:talk 5640:ISBN 5592:talk 5564:talk 5505:talk 5416:talk 5352:CMoS 5219:talk 5168:here 5096:and 5084:vs. 5058:". 4921:talk 4899:talk 4850:talk 4837:. A 4820:talk 4816:John 4814:. -- 4793:talk 4676:talk 4655:and 4627:talk 4537:talk 4486:talk 4418:talk 4404:talk 4386:talk 4356:talk 4342:talk 4306:talk 4292:talk 4277:talk 4254:talk 4235:talk 4168:talk 4153:talk 4131:talk 4096:talk 4043:talk 4031:were 4022:talk 4008:talk 3933:talk 3918:talk 3895:talk 3881:talk 3866:talk 3848:talk 3834:talk 3820:talk 3798:talk 3762:talk 3680:talk 3649:talk 3635:talk 3613:RE: 3605:talk 3574:talk 3556:talk 3539:talk 3518:talk 3498:idea 3494:have 3484:talk 3306:talk 3174:talk 3165:know 3092:talk 3070:talk 2992:talk 2978:talk 2903:talk 2886:talk 2868:talk 2848:talk 2818:talk 2794:talk 2775:talk 2757:talk 2743:talk 2724:talk 2706:talk 2688:talk 2663:talk 2640:talk 2619:talk 2589:talk 2556:talk 2533:talk 2525:does 2481:talk 2448:talk 2365:talk 2346:talk 2337:only 2317:talk 2286:talk 2192:talk 2091:This 2023:talk 1977:talk 1935:talk 1604:talk 1586:talk 1568:talk 1548:talk 1498:talk 1448:non- 1442:and 1408:talk 1381:and 1320:talk 1168:talk 1117:talk 1090:talk 1031:talk 982:talk 903:and 842:talk 768:talk 655:talk 633:talk 618:talk 585:talk 567:talk 545:talk 518:talk 490:talk 458:talk 432:talk 412:talk 385:talk 377:4. 330:vs. 249:talk 235:talk 220:talk 173:talk 125:talk 8755:). 8735:NE2 8324:ⱷ≼ 8320:≽ⱷ҅ 8284:FYI 8222:ⱷ≼ 8218:≽ⱷ҅ 8164:ⱷ≼ 8160:≽ⱷ҅ 8109:or 8076:ⱷ≼ 8072:≽ⱷ҅ 8023:the 7850:. — 7838:at 7798:PBS 7775:ⱷ≼ 7771:≽ⱷ҅ 7716:PBS 7688:ⱷ≼ 7684:≽ⱷ҅ 7587:OCR 7574:ⱷ≼ 7570:≽ⱷ҅ 7521:PBS 6994:eye 6914:or 6910:or 6902:on 6839:ⱷ≼ 6835:≽ⱷ҅ 6706:ⱷ≼ 6702:≽ⱷ҅ 6545:, 6454:ⱷ≼ 6450:≽ⱷ҅ 6419:or 6415:or 6325:ⱷ≼ 6321:≽ⱷ҅ 6260:ⱷ≼ 6256:≽ⱷ҅ 6178:ⱷ≼ 6174:≽ⱷ҅ 6129:ⱷ≼ 6125:≽ⱷ҅ 6064:can 6014:ⱷ≼ 6010:≽ⱷ҅ 5885:pig 5759:ⱷ≼ 5755:≽ⱷ҅ 5672:or 5660:or 5630:of 5445:Jew 5394:ⱷ≼ 5390:≽ⱷ҅ 5178:not 5147:ⱷ≼ 5143:≽ⱷ҅ 5111:are 5006:ⱷ≼ 5002:≽ⱷ҅ 4954:ⱷ≼ 4950:≽ⱷ҅ 4885:of 4672:P64 4514:ⱷ≼ 4510:≽ⱷ҅ 4482:PBS 4480:-- 4212:ⱷ≼ 4208:≽ⱷ҅ 4035:not 4014:.". 3905:all 3531:not 3373:PBS 3302:PBS 2788:". 2508:set 2464:__ 2256:not 2233:__ 2142:__ 2111:__ 2106:RFC 1992:__ 1897:__ 1848:__ 1809:__ 1763:__ 1710:__ 1693:__ 1658:__ 1641:__ 1621:__ 1453:__ 1364:ⱷ≼ 1360:≽ⱷ҅ 1316:PBS 1299:ⱷ≼ 1295:≽ⱷ҅ 1263:FYI 1209:ⱷ≼ 1205:≽ⱷ҅ 1186:. 1150:ⱷ≼ 1146:≽ⱷ҅ 1070:ⱷ≼ 1066:≽ⱷ҅ 1013:ⱷ≼ 1009:≽ⱷ҅ 970:not 960:ⱷ≼ 956:≽ⱷ҅ 938:IAU 869:ⱷ≼ 865:≽ⱷ҅ 829:ⱷ≼ 825:≽ⱷ҅ 792:); 731:ⱷ≼ 727:≽ⱷ҅ 684:FYI 277:FYI 112:MOS 8789:) 8765:) 8707:) 8666:) 8649:) 8623:) 8598:) 8590:. 8574:) 8495:) 8472:) 8435:) 8400:) 8349:) 8307:— 8305:. 8287:– 8262:) 8241:) 8205:— 8196:) 8147:— 8137:) 8107:to 8101:, 8059:— 8015:) 7977:) 7935:) 7915:) 7900:) 7876:) 7858:) 7842:. 7804:) 7758:— 7722:) 7671:— 7645:) 7598:) 7557:— 7548:) 7527:) 7472:) 7374:) 7342:) 7299:) 6969:) 6961:-- 6942:. 6926:) 6867:) 6822:— 6786:) 6758:) 6689:— 6633:) 6597:, 6589:, 6585:: 6571:, 6567:, 6563:: 6553:, 6549:, 6519:, 6515:: 6482:) 6437:— 6351:) 6308:— 6243:— 6161:— 6148:) 6112:— 6081:) 6030:, 5997:— 5949:, 5935:, 5927:, 5915:, 5903:, 5895:, 5891:, 5883:, 5879:, 5865:, 5861:, 5857:, 5790:: 5742:— 5724:) 5688:) 5594:) 5566:) 5507:) 5418:) 5377:— 5326:, 5314:, 5221:) 5203:If 5130:— 5050:(" 4989:— 4937:— 4923:) 4915:. 4901:) 4852:) 4822:) 4795:) 4772:th 4769:pa 4766:io 4763:ad 4724:}} 4718:{{ 4701:th 4698:pa 4695:io 4692:ad 4678:) 4670:-- 4663:}} 4657:{{ 4651:}} 4645:{{ 4629:) 4621:. 4539:) 4531:-- 4497:— 4488:) 4420:) 4406:) 4388:) 4358:) 4344:) 4308:) 4294:) 4279:) 4256:) 4237:) 4195:— 4170:) 4155:) 4133:) 4098:) 4090:-- 4045:) 4024:) 3935:) 3920:) 3897:) 3883:) 3868:) 3850:) 3836:) 3822:) 3800:) 3764:) 3682:) 3651:) 3637:) 3607:) 3576:) 3558:) 3550:-- 3541:) 3520:) 3486:) 3308:) 3176:) 3094:) 3072:) 2994:) 2980:) 2905:) 2888:) 2870:) 2850:) 2820:) 2796:) 2777:) 2759:) 2745:) 2726:) 2708:) 2690:) 2665:) 2642:) 2621:) 2591:) 2580:is 2558:) 2535:) 2483:) 2450:) 2367:) 2348:) 2319:) 2288:) 2194:) 2025:) 1979:) 1964:is 1937:) 1606:) 1588:) 1580:. 1570:) 1550:) 1423:– 1347:— 1322:) 1312:US 1282:— 1266:– 1192:— 1170:) 1133:— 1119:) 1092:) 1053:— 1033:) 996:— 984:) 943:— 923:). 916:, 894:: 852:— 844:) 812:— 796:; 770:) 714:— 687:– 657:) 635:) 620:) 587:) 569:) 547:) 520:) 492:) 434:) 400:}} 396:{{ 387:) 299:⚟ 280:– 251:) 237:) 222:) 206:/ 175:) 127:) 94:→ 64:← 8785:( 8761:( 8757:— 8703:( 8662:( 8645:( 8619:( 8594:( 8570:( 8491:( 8468:( 8431:( 8396:( 8345:( 8322:ᴥ 8318:¢ 8315:☏ 8312:☺ 8258:( 8237:( 8233:— 8220:ᴥ 8216:¢ 8213:☏ 8210:☺ 8192:( 8188:— 8185:. 8179:☺ 8162:ᴥ 8158:¢ 8155:☏ 8152:☺ 8133:( 8129:— 8074:ᴥ 8070:¢ 8067:☏ 8064:☺ 8011:( 7973:( 7931:( 7911:( 7896:( 7872:( 7854:( 7800:( 7773:ᴥ 7769:¢ 7766:☏ 7763:☺ 7718:( 7702:@ 7686:ᴥ 7682:¢ 7679:☏ 7676:☺ 7661:♪ 7659:✍ 7641:( 7622:♪ 7620:✍ 7594:( 7572:ᴥ 7568:¢ 7565:☏ 7562:☺ 7544:( 7523:( 7468:( 7439:♪ 7437:✍ 7390:♪ 7388:✍ 7370:( 7357:♪ 7355:✍ 7338:( 7322:♪ 7320:✍ 7310:: 7306:@ 7295:( 7285:: 7281:@ 7271:♪ 7269:✍ 7259:♪ 7257:✍ 6965:( 6922:( 6863:( 6837:ᴥ 6833:¢ 6830:☏ 6827:☺ 6798:: 6794:@ 6782:( 6754:( 6735:♪ 6733:✍ 6704:ᴥ 6700:¢ 6697:☏ 6694:☺ 6629:( 6619:. 6579:. 6478:( 6467:: 6463:@ 6452:ᴥ 6448:¢ 6445:☏ 6442:☺ 6383:( 6362:: 6358:@ 6347:( 6337:: 6333:@ 6323:ᴥ 6319:¢ 6316:☏ 6313:☺ 6294:: 6290:@ 6258:ᴥ 6254:¢ 6251:☏ 6248:☺ 6222:: 6218:@ 6176:ᴥ 6172:¢ 6169:☏ 6166:☺ 6144:( 6127:ᴥ 6123:¢ 6120:☏ 6117:☺ 6077:( 6012:ᴥ 6008:¢ 6005:☏ 6002:☺ 5939:. 5757:ᴥ 5753:¢ 5750:☏ 5747:☺ 5735:/ 5720:( 5684:( 5645:. 5605:: 5601:@ 5590:( 5583:: 5579:@ 5562:( 5549:: 5545:@ 5518:: 5514:@ 5503:( 5496:: 5492:@ 5437:: 5433:@ 5430:: 5426:@ 5414:( 5392:ᴥ 5388:¢ 5385:☏ 5382:☺ 5322:( 5310:( 5232:: 5228:@ 5217:( 5145:ᴥ 5141:¢ 5138:☏ 5135:☺ 5080:( 5004:ᴥ 5000:¢ 4997:☏ 4994:☺ 4985:: 4981:@ 4952:ᴥ 4948:¢ 4945:☏ 4942:☺ 4919:( 4897:( 4848:( 4818:( 4791:( 4775:y 4760:R 4748:♪ 4746:✍ 4704:y 4689:R 4674:( 4625:( 4535:( 4512:ᴥ 4508:¢ 4505:☏ 4502:☺ 4484:( 4416:( 4402:( 4384:( 4378:" 4374:" 4354:( 4340:( 4304:( 4290:( 4275:( 4252:( 4233:( 4210:ᴥ 4206:¢ 4203:☏ 4200:☺ 4166:( 4151:( 4129:( 4094:( 4041:( 4020:( 4006:( 3931:( 3916:( 3893:( 3879:( 3864:( 3846:( 3832:( 3818:( 3796:( 3760:( 3678:( 3647:( 3633:( 3603:( 3572:( 3554:( 3537:( 3516:( 3505:. 3482:( 3441:1 3387:. 3379:, 3304:( 3172:( 3090:( 3068:( 2990:( 2976:( 2901:( 2884:( 2866:( 2846:( 2816:( 2792:( 2773:( 2755:( 2741:( 2722:( 2704:( 2686:( 2661:( 2638:( 2617:( 2587:( 2554:( 2531:( 2479:( 2446:( 2363:( 2344:( 2315:( 2284:( 2277:: 2273:@ 2263:— 2190:( 2021:( 2014:) 2010:( 1975:( 1933:( 1602:( 1584:( 1566:( 1546:( 1362:ᴥ 1358:¢ 1355:☏ 1352:☺ 1318:( 1297:ᴥ 1293:¢ 1290:☏ 1287:☺ 1242:♪ 1240:✍ 1207:ᴥ 1203:¢ 1200:☏ 1197:☺ 1166:( 1148:ᴥ 1144:¢ 1141:☏ 1138:☺ 1115:( 1105:: 1101:@ 1088:( 1068:ᴥ 1064:¢ 1061:☏ 1058:☺ 1029:( 1011:ᴥ 1007:¢ 1004:☏ 1001:☺ 980:( 958:ᴥ 954:¢ 951:☏ 948:☺ 867:ᴥ 863:¢ 860:☏ 857:☺ 840:( 827:ᴥ 823:¢ 820:☏ 817:☺ 788:( 766:( 729:ᴥ 725:¢ 722:☏ 719:☺ 653:( 647:" 631:( 616:( 612:— 583:( 565:( 561:— 558:. 543:( 516:( 488:( 430:( 383:( 293:⚞ 247:( 233:( 218:( 171:( 142:( 123:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Archive 161 - Knowledge

Index