Sentence spacing is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 4, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 11, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 12, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 27, 2010 Peer review Reviewed May 27, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 15, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 22, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that French spacing, the typographical practice of adding two (rather than one) spaces after a full stop, is a result of the monospaced fonts used by typewriters? Current status: Featured article

Typography FA‑class Mid‑importance

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

Archives

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

French spacing  Expansion dispute

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

Here is a blockquote from another section:

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the first question, please see WP:TOPPOST, and [1].  Regarding the assertion about the WP:RS, I don't see relevance since WP:RS states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources."  More to the point, do you agree that the Microsoft reference is discussing the implementation of a proportional space?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.69 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. It is—
• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
• (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
• (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
3. Media. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

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

This point has been previously mentioned without receiving a response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blockquote follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blockquote from Ruhrfisch follows:

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

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

Blockquote from Ruhrfisch follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My recommendation would be to start with the following:

Chicago Manual of Style, 2003

Oxford Style Manual, 2003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the editors here might be interested in the following article: "Space Invaders: Why you should never, ever use two spaces after a period". It's Slate.com's #1 "most read" article now. I don't think that it's needed as a further source here, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless...for a variety of reasons. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hilarious, and I read the whole thing. I am very glad that none of my letters to former girl friends are public! Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - any reason not to add this as an External link? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, fun read, yes, let's have it as an external link! --Nuujinn (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, There is no consensus that this is WP:RS as you claim here, or anything other than satire.  Please don't put this back as an external link unless a consensus becomes clear.  Two-spacing is the current manuscript norm for APA style, acknowledged by MLA, is supported by the little scholarly opinion that is available, and surveys show it is used by half of respondents; so it is only necessary to look at the title to document that this slate.com web page "misleads the reader".  RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that RB has reverted me, so I ask now what is the objection to having it as an external link. The last time I looks, Slate was a reliable source in that it is a well known magazine with a good reputation for reporting. The fact that the title expresses an opinion does not detract from that reliability, and I do not think that it misleads the reader in any way. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled back the removal of the Slate.com EL. Wikipedia works on consensus and in this section 3 of 5 editors were in favor of this as an EL, one like the link but did not weigh in on it as an EL, and one (RB) is opposed. How is this consensus to remove the EL? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look there was never a consensus to add the link, Airborne84 specifically said that it did not need to be added, one person proposed adding it, one person agreed, and the debate dropped.  Then Airborner84 quietly added the link without discussing it.  Now we can get all worked up over procedural issues of what does it mean when an editor adds something when he says it is not needed, or we can go right to the real point which is that the consensus here was and is that this Slate page is satire.  But instead of that being just my own opinion, do you Ruhrfisch, and do you Nuujinn, agree that this web page is satire?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.123 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of it being an EL and have said so here three times now (still only counts as one !vote though ;-) ). Nuujinn wrote "let's have it as an external link!". Airboirne84 added it to the article as an EL in the first place, so I count this as being in favor. RB does not want it as an EL. That is how I get 3 in favor of this as an EL and 1 against, of the 5 editors who have weighed in on this matter (Johnuniq liked the link, but did not weigh in on it as an EL). Other editors are welcome to weigh in, of course.

As for the Slate piece, while it includes some humor, it also cites its sources: "James Felici, author of the The Complete Manual of Typography" as well as "Every major style guide—including the Modern Language Association Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Style—prescribes a single space after a period. (The Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, used widely in the social sciences, allows for two spaces in draft manuscripts but recommends one space in published work.)" and also " Ilene Strizver, who runs a typographic consulting firm The Type Studio" as well as "David Jury, the author of About Face: Reviving The Rules of Typography". I also note that it now has a correction, which to me is a sign of a RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slate is a well respected magazine and thus does qualify as a reliable source in general, and in a quick check of the RSN archives confirms that other editors have expressed this regard. The fact that the title indicates an opinion on the part of the author does not discount the reliability of sources--NPOV does not dictate that we choose neutral sources, but rather that we present reliable sources neutrally. Also, I would note that I see no evidence that there's consensus that the Slate article is satire--fwiw, I would not characterize it as such. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Slate is a RS and also do not think the article is a satire (though, as I mentioned, it does have some humor). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by the references in the following paragraph (beginning the section "Style guides"): "By the 1980s, the United Kingdom's Hart's Rules (1983)^[1]..."

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

"...and the United States' Chicago Manual of Style (1969) had shifted to single sentence spacing.^[2]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since Geoffrey.landis added a neutrality tag to the sentence "With the introduction of proportional fonts in computers, double sentence spacing became obsolete", I'll ask the editors here to weigh in—again—on whether the sentence is POV. I'd also ask editors to please limit their statements to relevant material provided by reliable sources, not personal opinions.

Trovadore has brought up that LaTeX inserts extra spacing after sentences. This is irrelevant for various reasons: (1) "extra sentence spacing" is not "double sentence spacing" and thus does not apply to this sentence, (2) extra/double spacing can be used and still be obsolete in the opinion of experts.

I'll reiterate the multiple reliable sources I listed in the above thread. Jury uses the word "obsolete", and it is also used in Matthew Butterick's book, Typography for Lawyers: "Most fonts used in word processors since the mid-1990’s have the correct spacing already adjusted, rendering the traditional double space after a full stop (period) obsolete." I'm sure I can find more examples of the exact word "obsolete", but paraphrasing is allowed at Wikipedia.

IMO, "obsolete" is a reasonable paraphrase for the statements made by many other experts. I have many more published statements by experts that say the same thing. I don't think that they are needed. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is English, not French; we have no counterpart to the Academie Française and nor shall we ever tolerate one. Style guides and experts have no authority beyond the extent to which they are followed in practice. Therefore what happens in practice very much is relevant. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get your point. Clearly many people still use two spaces after a full stop, but that's not the issue. I note that in the examples you provided that the user of LaTex must make accommodations to prevent problems when that option is enabled. LaTex is venerable, and it's not uncommon, and indeed desirable, for such software to retain older features so as to avoid creating problem. But in any case, the bottom line is that you would need to bring a reliable source to the table that contradicts the notion that double spacing is not obsolete. Also, I would ask if you are very sure that LaTex inserts two spaces after a full stop, or just uses a wider space? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It uses a wider space, not two full spaces. I'm not sure what you mean that the user must make accommodations -- the extra space is the default behavior, and is what is ordinarily seen in mathematics journals (most mathematics papers are written with LaTeX). --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know what LaTeX is used for. "Double spaces" means two spaces, and that's what's obsolete. The accommodations are use of non-breaking spaces, thin spaces, etc, where LaTeX incorrectly detects the end of a sentence.

Here are some points that support the existence of multiple POV problems in this sentence. Summary: (1) the two sources quoted are not reliable in the context, (2) three reliable sources are provided that refute the objectivity of the sentence, (3) the sentence does not satisfy WP:UCS.

1. Text that says that proportional "fonts" adjust spaces, is by definition not WP:RS in the context, because it is not English, see a dictionary.
2. Jury has been previously identified as not writing from a scientific viewpoint.  In particular, his opinions about typewriter typesetting are not WP:RS in the context.  See here for the analysis.
3. This article has excluded the entire weight, such as it is, of scientific opinion, on the grounds that the conclusion is "embarrassing" to the scientists (see previous discussion on Loh 2002).  Current scientific opinion opposes the idea that double-sentence spacing is obsolete.
4. Even in typesetting, en-spacing (one of the typesetting concepts referenced by the Article as double-spacing) is not obsolete (see Bringhurst).
5. WP:UCS says that its not "obsolete" if it is still in common use.
   

Comment: Inline attribution is the quick way to improve this sentence. RB  66.217.117.76 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1), no, I don't believe that's how RS works. We do not judge the accuracy of a source using our own knowledge to determine whether a source is RS. Regarding 2), I don't see consensus for your conclusion, just that you have the opinion that Jury is not RS, and that Airborne disagrees. Regarding 5), WP:UCS is part of an essay, not a policy or a guideline. If we have sources that use the term obsolete, and none that refute, we use obsolete. If we have sources that use obsolete, and some that refute it, we document the disagreement. I can take a look at the other two issues later. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, If WP:UCS is "not a policy", how do you explain [this sentence], "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It is. It's a friendlier restatement of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules"?  RB  66.217.117.171 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RB, WP:UCS is a section of the essay Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. The essay itself has a notice at the top which says "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. It is not a Wikipedia policy." The UCS section itself also says (under "There is no common sense") "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. ... Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing "common sense" and leaving it at that." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[insert starts here]

Ruhrfisch, there is no apparent reason that you copied that text.  There was a previous question raised to say, "WP:UCS is part of an essay, not a policy or a guideline."  I took note of the words, "part of an essay"; before I asked Nuujinn to explain his words "not a policy", against the words of WP:UCS which says, "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It is. It's a friendlier restatement of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules."

FYI, the kind of common sense I'm talking about is the basic ordinary kind that will lead readers of this web page to be put off by obvious opinion put in Wikipedia's voice.  Half of survey respondents are using double-sentence spacing.  The recent changes at APA to move back to recommending two-spacing were only slightly softened in the 2nd printing.  Here is what a [current APA web page] says regarding the change from the 5th to the 6th edition, bolded for emphasis Punctuation—return to two spaces after the period at the end of the sentence recommended for ease of reading comprehension.  The point continues to be that any use of the word "obsolete" in this article must be part of a quote within an in-text attribution.  RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[insert ends here]

Yes, and I just reviewed the discussion on Talk:Sentence_spacing/Archive_4#Loh.2C_Branch.2C_Shewanown.2C_and_Ali._.282002.29_.22The_Effect_of_Text_Spacing_After_the_Period....22. I think others should do the same, but I do not agree with your interpretation that the material was excluded because it was embarrassing. I see some discussion of that issue, and then the conversation devolved to other issues. Yes, Loh is a scientific work, but it appears to be to be a primary source based on a few user studies, and one that not only failed to reach a definite conclusion about readability, but ironically brought question whether their recommendation was a good one, given the problem it would have caused them their article submission had they followed their own advice. Thus, it is not the kind of source I would think we really need for this article, especially given the wide range of sources we have available to us. Also, from the quote Airborne84 provided from Bringhurst, it appears to me that that source does in fact suggest that use of double spaces after a full stop to separate sentences is obsolete (at least, that's what I get from "quaint Victorian habit". I think it is important to be specific here--the issue I am trying to address here and now is that is it now obsolete, according to manuals of style and other sources we have available to us, for the person entering text to use two spaces at the ends of sentences, for the reason that modern systems use proportional fonts and have the ability to adjust the width of spaces as desired. And the question I ask is are there any reliable secondary sources that refute the notion that use of two spaces at the end of a sentence is a Good Thing and not, in fact, obsolete. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to continue the conversation about the scientific study, but since RB will apparently continue to do so, I'll address it in more depth. That way all the relevant facts will be available to the editors here. The passage in question from Loh, et al. (2002) is as follows: "Although the mean of the reading time indicated that the 'double space' group took longer time to finish reading the passages as compared to the 'single space' group, the time difference were not statistically significant. Because there was no added advantage in advocating sentence separation using single space over double space, our recommendation is to adhere to the long-standing practice of using double space for sentence separation, be it in print or for online documents. As this article was being prepared for print in accordance with the IVLA guideline for 'Selected Readings,' the authors noticed that the block justification would preclude the use of double spacing in text separation." However, the text of the article is left justified. Reviewers of the article certainly wouldn't have seen the final version, so I understand why this could have happened. It's also a surprising statement, given what we know about print and online documents in the period before 2002. Thus, I didn't see the need to bring this material up in this article. Regardless, that is not the important information here. The direct studies from 2002–2009 are done by the "Sentence Period Spacing" team at the University of Georgia. The different authors account for students transitioning through the research team, I'm sure. Robert Branch, PhD provides the continuity. The latest studies (in fact all since the 2002 study) provide no "recommendations" to favor single or double spacing. The most recent study, Ni, et al. (2009) should be looked at for the latest recommendation from that research team. It stated simply that the research was inconclusive. More exactly, it stated that the "results provided insufficient evidence that time and comprehension differ significantly among different conditions of spacing between sentences." There was no recommendation to favor single or double sentence spacing. I hope this help clear up the details of the direct studies--Airborne84 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Reliable sources refute the idea that two-spacing or extra-wide spacing is or has been "obsolete" in any context: typesetting, keyboarding, video data terminal (VDT) display, typewritten manuscripts, or electronic data files.  Bringhurst documents the case for typesetting, APA and MLA for keyboarding, Loh et al. 2002 for VDT display, there is no dispute for typewritten manuscripts, and Chicago Guide to Preparing Electronic Manuscripts for electronic data files.  Online surveys show that half of the respondents are using double spacing.  Even in a survey on a site advocating single-spacing, there was a large minority using or favoring double spacing.  WP:V is clear, that "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution."  I'll put that in bold so that it is more easily noticed, Use in-text attribution.  RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step away from the issue of what should be in the research section, and focus on Loh 2002 for the current POV question. I have previously said, "This is a peer-reviewed article with possibly the single most-important research conclusion on the topic of Sentence Spacing."  Loh 2002 is a reliable primary source whose conclusion I believe has not been refuted after eight years. 

Since there (is) no added advantage in advocating sentence separation using single-space over double-space, our recommendation is to adhere to the longstanding practice of using double-space for sentence separation, be it in print or for online documents.

This conclusion is contrary to the idea that double-spacing is obsolete.

Here is text from Bringhurst from a Google snippet view.  I have added the bold to emphasize that extra-spacing is not obsolete in typesetting.
www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=isbn%3A0881792063+%22full+en+space%22

The elements of typographic style

Robert Bringhurst - 2004 - 382 pages - Snippet view

p. 28
...As a general rule, no more than a single space is required after a period, a colon or any other mark of punctuation. Larger spaces (eg, en spaces) are themselves punctuation.

The rule is sometimes altered, however, when setting classical Latin and Greek, romanized Sanskrit, phonetics or other kinds of texts in which sentences begin with lowercase letters. In the absence of a capital, a full en space (M/2) between sentences may be welcome.
RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(answering all of the above by RB, no need to fork the conversation) In regard to Loh, I suppose I could repeat what I said above, but I would suggest instead that you simply re-read it. Better still re-read what Airborne84 wrote, they have put it much better than I. Also, please take a look at WP:PRIMARY. Generally speaking, primary sources require interpretation by experts, which we are not. In regard Bringhurst I note that the first quote supports the notion that double spaces are a no-no. In regard to sentences that begin with lower case letter, I note that Bringhurst is suggesting use of a single wide may be of advantage, not two spaces. I am very sure I don't see your point. As a personal aside, in regard to VDTs, I will note that they are better much obsolete themselves--I work with a very large number of computers, we have 2 VDTs in the closet we use with olde network hardware as needed, and one attached to a PBX. No one I know uses a VDT for doc prep, although I suppose some might still be in use at newspaper facilities. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn,
re: is a single en-space that is twice as wide as a word space a double-space?

You raise the point that since Bringhurst does not talk about "double spacing" (and instead uses en-spacing which is a single character twice as wide as a word character) he isn't to be considered in discussion about whether or not "double-spacing" is "obsolete". Your position seems to run against that of Airborne84, who said:

--Airborne84 (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I list reliable sources (all but Butterick are listed in the Sentence spacing article at this time) that either use the word obsolete, or make statements that fit one of the accepted definitions of obsolete.

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

Are you saying that Airborne84 erred when he listed Bringhurst?  Otherwise, please clarify your own statement.  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.161 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/font%5B2%5D,

Definition of FONT
 : an assortment or set of type or characters all of one style and sometimes one size

I have a question here, I looked in WP:MOS and elsewhere and I couldn't find anywhere that said that it is policy that the English Wikipedia uses English (it just says that for talk pages).  Do we agree under WP:UCS that the Sentence Spacing article should use English?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you want to think of this as an external Wikipedia editor who agrees that the English Wikipedia should use English, or a dissatisfied Wikipedia customer for our Sentence Spacing article; but he/she is discussing the same topic as we are: here.  RB  66.217.118.123 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't strike me as a reliable source, any more than WP is. I also note that in the example he links to, he's not using two spaces after the full stop in his sentence, but rather a space and a character sequence that gets rendered as a hard space, which I think supports the notion that using two spaces after a period is obsolete. HTML renderers render 2+ spaces as a single space. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a section labelled "controversy." Is there a controversy on this subject?

With the current wording: no. The use of double spacing after a sentence is stated to be "obsolete." (twice). That's a pretty clear statement, and unless it's cited as an opinion, then there isn't any controversy: it's obsolete, Wikipedia says so, end of story.

--if, on the other hand, there actually is a controversy, and we want to (according to WP:NPOV) "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" and "prefer non-judgmental language," then when one source (or even two sources) use judgmental words like "obsolete" or "misconception," it is worth considering that any particular source might be expressing an opinion on one side of the controversy.

I cannot think of any way to not view the word "misconception" as judgmental language. If I say you have an misconception, is there any possible way to read that other than as expressing the judgment that your opinions are wrong? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC) A few comments:[reply]

I'd like to make one thing clear. I'm fine with making changes to the article. However, given that the article is a contentious, Featured Article, one editor making changes that are likely to be disputed may not be the best use of WP:BRD. Changes that are likely to be disputed here should be discussed first.

If the consensus of editors here agree that the word should read "conception" instead of "misconception", I will go along with that. I personally believe that the word "misconception" is accurate according to any accepted definition of the word.

That is a misconception on your part. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the consensus of editors here agree that a change should be made, that's fine. We can certainly make reasonable changes to the article.

As far as the section header "Controversy", I'm not sure what you are proposing. Similar to Global warming, there is little controversy among experts regarding the facts, but there is a controversy in the general public. I suppose that the section header could also say "Public controversy" or "Popular views on sentence spacing", but I would not support a change without a consensus of editors. That the controversy exists in non-expert minds is obvious when reading the section, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airborne84 (talk • contribs)

Geoffrey, NPOV doesn't mean the article takes no position. It means the article takes no position that is not accepted in the body of literature used. If the sources used in the article state things like "obsolete" and "misconception" in reference to predominant scholarly position, that is what we should say in the article. What sources do you have that contradict these positions? I've read through your various arguments here, but I've not yet seen you introduce any serious sources that back up your claims. Since this is a Featured Article, we want to avoid making changes that degrade the quality of the article. If you insert lead or body text that is not well-sourced and representative of the current body of literature, you are degrading the quality. I urge you to propose changes and sources here first. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, generally agree with Andy Walsh. Second, it is not correct to say that "The use of double spacing after a sentence is stated to be 'obsolete.'" Rather, the WP article states that the convention that leads to its use is obsolete. As a result, there is no contradiction in having a heading "controversy" about a practice the necessity for which may be obsolete, but which persists for various reasons (which are then outlined in the article). I thought the heading was OK (I don't have an objection to "Popular views on sentence spacing", although it may be MOS non-compliant strictly speaking, because it encapsulates the article title). Finally, given the extensive debate on these issues and the articles FA status, i agree these issues should be tackled here on the talk page prior to revisions in the mainspace. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Andy Walsh as well, and what hamiltonstone has said seems very reasonable as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I reverted fifteen consecutive edits by Airborne84, which, as far as I can tell, were done to accomplish the single result of reverting the entirety of the material I had added. Perhaps buried in these deletions were some edits that had the objective of making the article clearer, but if so they were buried too deep to be easily found.

The material I had added can be quickly summarized as attempting to clarify a single point, which is missing in the original article, but is critical to the discussion: There is a distinction between manuscript and print.' Style guides for print are one thing, style guides for manuscripts are another thing, they are not the same. It is possible to insert as many references as you like to discussions of style by typesetters, and they will not affect the question of proper style for manuscripts. Typewriting is not typesetting. Sweeping statements written by typesetters in discussing style in print-- statements like "double spacing is obsolete"-- need to be understood in the contest of typesetting.

With that said, some of Airborne84's individual notes may merit being addressed individually, e.g., the removal of this statement "As of 2010, it is reported by Strizver that the double-space typewriter convention is still being taught widely in school.^[3]" as not relevant to the subject of style guides. To the contrary, however. The best thing to put in this place would be a citation to the actual manual(s) currently used for teaching typing. As it happens, though, although I have a moderate number of style guides and references in the house, I haven't taken a typing course in many decades, and a typing textbook is not one of the things I have easily at hand. It should be clear, I hope, however, that if the double-space typewriter convention is being widely taught, then this must be what is in the associated manual. The sentence is the best I could do at short notice. ( I suppose an alternate way to accomplish this would be to simply state it, and add a "citation needed tag".) Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. I summarized the material you wanted added IAW Featured Article Criteria. I did not delete it, nor did I "revert the entirety of your edits". I made a good faith effort to capture the material that you wanted added. I did not get the same courtesy, however. You thought it would be best to delete every one of my edits, returning it to a clearly non-FA class article, without even reading them? You might understand if I am having a hard time assuming good faith for these actions.

You freely admit adding a statement based on speculation. That violates FA criteria 1.c. and 1.d.

Since you seem to have no qualms about taking an article that exemplifies Wikipedia's "best work", and making edits that violate the FA criteria, would you care to inform the other editors as to what standard you would like the article to achieve? --Airborne84 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the deleted material, but I think the distinction Geoffrey Landis mentions is crucial. In fact, I see four categories:

1. Monospaced fonts (mostly but not entirely historical)

2. Proportional fonts for direct consumption but not typeset professionally, such as most word-processed documents and e-mail.

3. Material submitted to someone who will typeset it.

4. Material typeset professionally, or at least with control of kerning.

In some places, such as the last paragraph of the lead, the current article rightly distinguishes among these. However, many of the obiter dicta in the Typography section, for example, do not. My opinion is that all quotations on the subject should be accompanied with a statement of which categories they apply to. If some of the sources don't make that clear, and including them is desirable anyway, their lack of clarity should be stated. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the basic issue, it is a massive problem throughout the article.  The problem starts in the first sentence of the article, which defines the article as being confined to typeset text.  But the article then wanders around using a typewriter terminology, "double-spacing".  And you can't tell when the discussion has shifted to VDT displays.  I'm having trouble with your four categories, I earlier listed (1) typesetting, (2) keyboarding, (3) typewriter manuscripts, (4) electronic data files, (5) VDT displays. But I like your point about kerning, I guess you would include justification in that class?  RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your categories. The ones I listed cut across your 4 and 5; all of them may be paper, electronic data, or video displays. So that makes even more categories. Also, these days, all of them can be right-justified, so that's yet another issue. But what I had in mind is the capability that users of TeX and publishing software have of making, say, the space after a sentence be 1.3333 times as long as the space between words. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above thread regarding the neutrality tag for the word "obsolete" has gotten diluted. I'm going to be away for a while, so I'll leave the editors here with relevant sources to use in discussing the tags. Unfortunately, some editors here refuse to accept any wording other than the exact "obsolete" as a paraphrase for that term. Thus, a definition is probably needed to help determine what an acceptable paraphrase is. Merriam-Webster Online gives the following definitions for the word "obsolete": "No longer used, no longer useful, of a kind or style no longer current, old-fashioned." Below, I list reliable sources (all but Butterick are listed in the Sentence spacing article at this time) that either use the word obsolete, or make statements that fit one of the accepted definitions of obsolete.

• David Jury - "why do so many people continue to use the primitive (and entirely obsolete) conventions of the typist?"
• Matthew Butterick in Typography for Lawyers. "Most fonts used in word processors since the mid-1990’s have the correct spacing already adjusted, rendering the traditional double space after a full stop (period) obsolete."
• Ilene Strizver - "Much has changed along the journey from typewriters to setting type on computers. Still, there are a number of typewriting conventions that are no longer relevant but which stubbornly refuse to go away. At the top of this list is the practice of putting two spaces between sentences.
• Robert Brighurst - "Your typing as well as your typesetting will benefit from unlearning this quaint Victorian habit."
• Ilene Strizver – "There is never a need for double spaces between sentences when setting type on your computer as was done in typewriter days. In fact, it is a serious type crime." "Forget about tolerating differences of opinion: typographically speaking, typing two spaces before the start of a new sentence is absolutely, unequivocally wrong."
• James Felici. "The typewriter tradition of separating sentences with two word spaces after a period has no place in typesetting. The custom began because the characters of monospaced typefaces used on typewriters were so wide and so open that a single word space—one the same width as a character, including the period—was not wide enough to create a sufficient space between sentences."
• Robert Bringhurst. "In the nineteenth century, which was a dark and inflationary age in typography and type design, many compositors were encouraged to stuff extra spaces between sentences. Generations of twentieth-century typists were then taught to do the same, by hitting the spacebar twice after every period. Your typing as well as your typesetting will benefit from unlearning this quaint Victorian habit."
• Bill Walsh. "Are you still putting two spaces after periods, exclamation points, question marks and colons? You shouldn't be. Some places are still clinging to this typewriter convention, no doubt, but as a standard operating procedure it went out with the IBM Selectric."
• Robin Williams. "Because all characters are monospaced, the tradition was to type two spaces after periods to separate sentences. But most of the fonts you'll use on your Mac are proportional; that is, the characters each take up a proportional amount of space-a typical letter I takes up about one-fifth the space of the letter m. So you no longer need extra spaces to separate the sentences."
• Mignon Fogarty. (after discussion of proportional fonts) "Typewriting used monospace fonts and needed two spaces. Now that most writing is done on computers it is no longer necessary to type two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence."
• Lindsay Rollo. "When using proportional faces, abandon certain type-writing conventions, such as the double space after a full point (stop)."
• Laurie Smith. The current typographic standard for a single space after the period is a reflection of the power of proportionally spaced fonts, which even typewriters (what few there are left) have nowadays. Not only is the need for an extra space negated w/proportional space type, using two spaces creates 'holes' in the middle of a block of text that invariably annoy graphic designers, typographers, and publishers. The extra spacing makes the body text both unattractive as a visual element and distracting to read.
• Bryan Garner, Jeff Newman, and Tiger Jackson. " The custom during the reign of the typewriter was to insert two spaces between sentences and after colons. The reason was that letters on a typewriter are monospaced, as is the Courier font on computers ... Continue the custom only if you use a typewriter or the Courier font."

And an unrelated question/response at the Online Chicago Manual of Style FAQ for some comic relief:

Q. About two spaces after a period. As a U.S. Marine, I know that what’s right is right and you are wrong. I declare it once and for all aesthetically more appealing to have two spaces after a period. If you refuse to alter your bullheadedness, I will petition the commandant to allow me to take one Marine detail to conquer your organization and impose my rule. Thou shalt place two spaces after a period. Period. Semper Fidelis.

A. As a U.S. Marine, you’re probably an expert at something, but I’m afraid it’s not this. Status quo.

That should provide enough information on the topic to determine whether the POV tags are necessary. IMO, these illustrate that the sentences in question are not POV. They simply summarize a notable idea/concept by experts and reliable sources on this topic.

And don't be that Marine... --Airborne84 (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, per my comment in an earlier discussion above. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that some people hold the opinion that two spaces is obsolete; I never disagreed with this. That's why it's called a "controversy": people hold opinions. You have selected a set of references in which people express points of view. As long as this is tagged as an opinion it is fine to cite these people, and even cite them as saying that people who disagree with them have a "misconception." It is when Wikipedia casually states this opinion as a fact, and leaves out context (i.e., that the people stating this are talking about typeset copy) which violates NPOV.

Even in the opinions you cite, the actual statements vary wildly in what they actually say. Many of these opinions merely say that double spacing is not "necessary," which is different from saying it is "obsolete." One of the references you cited specifically states "Continue the custom only if you use a typewriter or the Courier font"-- obviously that references does not think it is obsolete, since they are directing people to use it. Another states that monospace font needs two spaces.

Seven of these references specifically state that they are talking about typesetting. That's fine-- I wouldn't have bothered to call it a NPOV violation if the sentence had said, "in typesetting, many modern sources offer the opinion that double spacing at the end of a sentence has become obsolete." Does that phrasing satisfy as a compromise? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "people." These are established and published experts in this field—all of them. Thus, their "opinions" mean more than the general public.

Also, I see that my omission of the sentence in question has led to confusion. The sentence is: "With the introduction of proportional fonts in computers, double sentence spacing became obsolete." I won't debate the rest of your points now, since you seem to be reading selectively from the above. You've weighed in. Other editors can do so also. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing in being an "expert" in how you "should" typeset. These so-called experts have no authority except the extent to which they are followed in practice. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources and that's what we use. If you have reliable sources that differ, please bring them to the discussion. Personal assertions as to what is true don't carry much weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When prescriptive claims are presented as matters of fact, the situation is different. Let me put it this way. Is moral behavior a question of fact? I for one certainly think so. And there are lots of sources that can be called "reliable" according to WP language that will tell you which behavior is moral.

Nevertheless we do not present their prescriptive assertions as matters of fact. Perhaps they are right, but we don't say so.

We should not in this case either. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now know of three sources, Bringhurst, Chicago 1969, and Loh 2002, that have only material favorable to one POV reported in the article, and equally valid countering material missing. 

I think that this entire article has an inherent problem in the near-absence of scholarly opinion, and the absence of such opinion appears in the work of authors who have little that is reliable upon which to base their writings.  For example, there is no scientific hypothesis as to why typesetting style changed from the end of the 18th century to today.  Global warming we have some scientific theories, but typesetting style, no.  Again, the quick way to improve the article for assertions such as the word "obsolete" is in-text attribution.  RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who wish to improve this article are reminded of WP:V and WP:RS - it is not enough to claim that the article does not represent scientific theories, or claim that important sources are overlooked, or that claim important material is missing. You have to provide reliable sources that verify these claims.

I am glad to see new sources and do not doubt that this (and any) article can be improved. However Featured articles are not substantially changed without reliable sources to back up such changes. If this were a poker game, now would be the time to show what is in your hands (or fold). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you don't need sources (and are hardly likely to find any) to point out that the relevance or the meaning of parts of the article is unclear. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a uscourts.gov website, more support to show that authors (such as Wikipedia) who use the word "obsolete" are not reliable in the context when they do so.

www.flmb.uscourts.gov/procedures/documents/styleguide-tpa.pdf , p. 10

There are two spaces between each sentence and one space between each word in a sentence.

RB 66.217.118.161 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Doctoral Studies and Blaising, Craig, The Southern Seminary Manual of Style, Third Edition, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001, p. 41.

Terminal punctuation (periods, exclamation points, and question marks), quotation marks and footnotes following terminal punctuation, and colons may all be followed by one or two spaces as long as the document is consistent.  However, in bibliographies and notes, only one space after punctuation marks (including periods and colons) is allowed.
RB  66.217.118.161 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This post is for those considering whether or not typographer David Jury is a reliable author in the context when he says that typewriter conventions are "entirely obsolete".  According to a [reliable source] used by our Sentence Spacing article, the APA Publication Manual is one of three major style guides/manuals.  This post reports the decision of the APA in 2009 to again recommend double-spacing—the APA had published editions in 1994 and 2001 that had gone away from double-spacing.  In July 2009 the 6th edition was published.  The 6th Edition of the manual had some minor but notable revisions to the recommendation between the first and second printing, so it is necessary here to document both.

• APA What's New in the Sixth Edition of the Publication Manual? (applies to both first and second printing) "Punctuation—return to two spaces after the period at the end of the sentence recommended for ease of reading comprehension." [ref]

• 6th Edition, first printing, p. 88, "Space twice after punctuation marks at the end of a sentence" [ref]

• 6th Edition, second printing, p. 88, "Spacing twice after punctuation marks at the end of a sentence aids readers of draft manuscripts." [ref]

Written by an editor of the APA writing on a blog controlled by the APA, the following material is considered to be WP:RS.  It is written by Sarah Wiederkehr, [Editorial Supervisor, APA Journals], on July 29, 2009 at 01:01 PM, and describes why double spacing is current practice for APA. [ref]

...improved readability was the impetus behind the new “two spaces after a period” style recommendation in the Publication Manual. Believe it or not, there is a strong faction of readers out there who prefer this spacing; in fact, many in the legal community require it.

...this recommendation applies to draft manuscripts, not to the published, or final version, of a work. In addition, the inclusion of two spaces after a period in draft manuscripts being submitted for publication is a recommendation, not a requirement. In typeset manuscripts (and on webpages, which are the equivalent), the two spaces are up to the publication designer.

...Our aim was to improve the reading experience for those tasked with reviewing manuscripts. It’s that simple. Thank you for your interest in APA Style!
RB  66.217.118.161 (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry if any of this has been said above—that's a lot to read.

One thing I think the article needs is the reason so many typographers so strongly oppose double spacing between sentences. It's not readability, since the studies on that are inconclusive. Then what? Esthetics (such as avoiding "quaintness")? Saving paper?

Also, the article says, "modern proportional fonts allow compositors to manually adjust sentence spacing to thousandths of an inch for visually pleasing typesetting". When is this capability used? Do some compositors decrease the spaces after periods ending abbreviations etc. so the reader can tell them from spaces between sentences? I think it would be very interesting to know not only how long the space after a sentence should be, but also whether it should differ from other spaces after periods. In general, I still don't think the article deals well with this distinction.

As I said back in Archive 3, I don't see the relevance of the "Related studies". Surely reporting the results of readability studies is all that will help the reader. The "related studies" are confusing because they purport to explain why extra sentence space is harder to read, but it's not, as far as is known. Furthermore, some of them don't even have a clear connection to sentence spacing. What is meant by "the negative effect on readability caused by inconsistent spacing"—spacing that's inconsistent from one line to the next, or from one word space to another on the same line, or between word spaces and sentence spaces? This and various other problems with the section could be solved by deleting it.

Finally, as I also said back then, I think the article needs to distinguish clearly between deprecating double spacing ("absolutely, unequivocally wrong") and advocating single spacing, instead of mixing them together. People do use the alternative of something in between. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Related studies section really isn't all that it should be, but more research is needed to determine what exactly it should be. If anything, I propose it should be its own top-level heading and it should talk about inter-disciplinary studies related to the matter that go beyond typography. It should look at human/computer interaction, psychology, information architecture, and so on. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are relevant studies in any field, I think adding them would be great. Until someone finds them, though, can you or anyone explain to me the relevance to the article of any of the studies in that section? Keeping in mind that the comparisons of readability were inconclusive. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None that I can discern. "Studies" tells us that few direct studies have been done, and "Related studies" provides little more than conjecture. It's difficult to tell if we're reporting the conjecture of the researchers or the author of this page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree in regard to the "Related Studies" section. I would like to figure out a way to include something about the river effect since from personal experience I know it's relevant to the move to single spaces following a terminal stop. But it seems to be that the studies are so inconclusive that we're not really able to say much at all there that's significant. We could probably collapse that section into 1-2 sentences and do better. One issue is that technology has moved quickly--the discussion of readability on CRTs from 1981, for example, is something my gut is telling me is based on 80x24 fixed width text display that has nothing to do with CRTs per se. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about deleting the Related Studies, it is not relevant.  Maybe the encyclopedia could create a stub article with the rivers picture.

I want to note that there is one study of interest (and possibly a second) for the "Studies" section, where webword says:

Eye tracking researcher Dr. Keith Rayner had this to say:

...In 1975, I have a paper in Acta Psychologica that points out that readers skip over the spaces between sentences. You should also see a 1972 Reading Research Quarterly paper by Abrams and Zuber.

However, an examination of online abstracts for these two papers does not immediately yield material relevant to sentence spacing: Rayner 1975, Abrams and Zuber 1972.

RB   66.217.118.161 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a partial response to the question, "I think it would be very interesting to know not only how long the space after a sentence should be, but also whether it should differ from other spaces after periods."  I've got some study notes for this article whose reference would need to be found with Google, that say that today's default in mass-printing is that the word space is between 1/4 and 1/3 em before justification, and 1/4 to 1/2 em after justification.  FYI, RB  66.217.118.161 (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]