FANDOM


(Created page with "Then allow me to avoid the argument of authority fallacy and use cold, hard logic: No where on this wiki will you find color spelled as "colour," or honor spelled as "honour....")
 
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
This seems like a very abritrary thing to be upset over. Personally, I agree that commas and periods be outside the quotation if it isn't part of the title. But having gone through enough High School English classes to know I would have points reducted for doing as such, I have grown to become annoyed to this minute grammar error. So, exactly what or who am I harming by trying to be consistent? Should not this wiki strive to be the best it can, which means having consistent organization (such as punctuation)?
 
This seems like a very abritrary thing to be upset over. Personally, I agree that commas and periods be outside the quotation if it isn't part of the title. But having gone through enough High School English classes to know I would have points reducted for doing as such, I have grown to become annoyed to this minute grammar error. So, exactly what or who am I harming by trying to be consistent? Should not this wiki strive to be the best it can, which means having consistent organization (such as punctuation)?
   
Putting the comma/period inside the quotation is correct way to write regardless if that bothers you. Appealing to the masses, by claiming your opinion on the subject (which is honestly beside the point in the first place), is not really the argument to use either. How many people honestly believe in the household myth that your blood is blue until it reacts with oxygen? Too many, methinks. But if they were the majority, would that make them right despite the facts (solid, scientific facts) saying otherwise?
+
Putting the comma/period inside the quotation is correct way to write regardless if that bothers you. Appealing to the masses, by claiming your opinion on the subject (which is honestly beside the point in the first place) is shared by the majority, is not really the argument to use either. How many people honestly believe in the household myth that your blood is blue until it reacts with oxygen? Too many, methinks. But if they were the majority, would that make them right despite the facts (solid, scientific facts) saying otherwise?
   
 
I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, if anything at all. Perhaps my editting of pages with small seemingly (and admittedly) meaningless irked you. That's fine; but is it a punishable habit? I don't think so.
 
I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, if anything at all. Perhaps my editting of pages with small seemingly (and admittedly) meaningless irked you. That's fine; but is it a punishable habit? I don't think so.

Latest revision as of 21:56, May 14, 2015

Then allow me to avoid the argument of authority fallacy and use cold, hard logic:

No where on this wiki will you find color spelled as "colour," or honor spelled as "honour." You will notice that also no where can you find recognized spelled as "recognised," or agonizing as "agonising." 

Yes, this is still English, but the rules of American English (which as pointed above this wiki clearly favors) and British English have little variations in punctuation. So I must ask: why be inconsistent by placing the commas/periods outside the quotation marks when the rule in American English is that they should always be inside the quotation?

This seems like a very abritrary thing to be upset over. Personally, I agree that commas and periods be outside the quotation if it isn't part of the title. But having gone through enough High School English classes to know I would have points reducted for doing as such, I have grown to become annoyed to this minute grammar error. So, exactly what or who am I harming by trying to be consistent? Should not this wiki strive to be the best it can, which means having consistent organization (such as punctuation)?

Putting the comma/period inside the quotation is correct way to write regardless if that bothers you. Appealing to the masses, by claiming your opinion on the subject (which is honestly beside the point in the first place) is shared by the majority, is not really the argument to use either. How many people honestly believe in the household myth that your blood is blue until it reacts with oxygen? Too many, methinks. But if they were the majority, would that make them right despite the facts (solid, scientific facts) saying otherwise?

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, if anything at all. Perhaps my editting of pages with small seemingly (and admittedly) meaningless irked you. That's fine; but is it a punishable habit? I don't think so.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.