549:
248:
784:
659:
281:
711:
690:
421:
302:
502:
21:
890:
602:», indent paragraphs or separate them with vertical space, etc. Not adhering to commonly accepted conventions can make written products look unfamiliar to the average reader. Conventions can be determined by using primary source reference works, as well as determining what is common usage, which can change over time.
572:
A: Double sentence spacing (on typewriters) was primarily used in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and Canada (English). Because traditional spacing and French spacing is relevant to the topic, the article cannot be limited to "Sentence spacing in English." However, including languages based on
1119:
I wouldn't revert if you made those changes, and I agree the blog posts should go. One of those two appears to have been introduced since the article was promoted. Perhaps the other is from academics and was considered to be OK for that reason? I can't see any evidence of that if so, so I agree
1084:
The second paragraph seems to be a mixed of pros and cons, starting with the wonderful sentence: "Many people are opposed to single sentence spacing for various reasons." 🤔 "Others claim that additional space between sentences improves the aesthetics or readability of text." is already covered by
593:
A: There is no single authority for the
English language. However, there are commonly accepted writing conventions in national varieties of English (e.g., American and British English). For example, it is conventional in written English to capitalize the first word of every sentence; end sentences
1097:
The last paragraph (and part of the third one: "Some sources now state it is acceptable for monospaced fonts to be single-spaced today, although other references continue to specify double spacing for monospaced fonts.") about style guides recommendations should be moved to... "Style and language
937:
It's to prevent confusion with internal abbreviations where the dot is to be followed by a single space, for example "Mr." or "Dr.", especially because those very common abbreviations are almost always followed by a capital letter. This confusion is mentioned in the section on how computers deal
1124:, and if we're going to edit it or move bits of it I think it's worth checking to see what other differences there are since later edits may not have received as much scrutiny as the paragraph in the originally promoted article. However, the topic really is controversial (see
999:
There's a tag on the controversy section saying the negative information should be integrated into the rest of the article, but it seems to me it does a fine job of covering the controversy neutrally. I think the tag should be removed.
632:
A: This article simply reports what sources say about the topic. In this case, the sources themselves are contradictory. But coverage of these terms is necessary for completeness according to
Featured Article criterion
958:
The "en space" or "en quad" is in my recollection the standard word space, and the "em space" or "em quad" is the typical sentence space, which is backwards from the page text. Can someone corroborate or rebut this?
195:
1316:
1306:
1150:
Just a note to say that
Hallahan and Lloyd are (or were) professors at the University of Virginia Learning Disabilities Research Institute. This doesn't make them subject matter experts on typography.
406:
387:
349:
262:
1195:
is most concerned about BLPs, and this topic is inherently controversial. The content could conceivably be distributed throughout the article instead, but I don't think it's necessary for neutrality.
1301:
1128:
for evidence in popular culture), and I think readers may actually want to read a section summarizing the controversy, so I don't think it's harmful so long as the section phrases things neutrally.
761:
1243:
618:
Q: What is the reason for the shift away from double sentence spacing in professionally published works in the early 20th century and in style guides in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?
612:
A: There doesn't seem to be a good answer to this in published literature. Modern typographers only speculate about the rationale. If you can find the answer, please add it to the article.
287:
189:
1247:
1081:
The first paragraph with a 2009 quote about the current controversy should probably be moved to the
History section, "Transition to single spacing". And/or the lede.
368:
330:
608:
Q: Why did early professional typesetters use exaggerated spacing (em spaces) between sentences? What led them to believe that was the best way to set type?
1326:
751:
643:
A: Editors here have not found reliable, published sources that comment on this potential factor. If you can find the answer, please add it to the article.
121:
628:
Q: Why does this article use terms like French and
English spacing while acknowledging that they are confusing because they are not used consistently?
438:
86:
639:
Q: Why isn't typesetting time and cost mentioned, when it may have been a major factor in the modern transition from wider spacing to word spacing?
845:
1321:
1311:
727:
127:
1296:
1164:
1141:
1065:
1013:
842:
1160:
1137:
1061:
1009:
796:
939:
530:
960:
622:
A: There doesn't seem to be a good answer to this in published literature. If you can find the answer, please add it to the article.
718:
695:
830:
825:
820:
813:
808:
803:
210:
141:
72:
938:
with the distinction but should also be featured in the "Controversy" and "Effects on
Readability and Legibility" sections.
177:
146:
62:
1209:
1041:
116:
47:
1089:
573:
Sanscrit, Cyrillic, Cuniform, Hieroglyphics, Chinese, and
Japanese characters (among others), adds little to the article.
670:
875:
518:
257:
107:
1099:
1092:
171:
559:
854:
228:
980:
A few sentences are not sourced. And the "Controversy" section may be removed and its content moved elsewhere?
658:
247:
167:
1156:
1133:
1057:
1005:
943:
915:
151:
1191:
I don't have much to add about the content of the section. I just don't think the tag is necessary because
964:
280:
676:
431:
267:
217:
1088:
The third paragraph is similar. Looks like OR to me. It is partially sourced using two blog posts:
974:
923:
458:
420:
301:
203:
97:
40:
on 2 August 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see
726:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
533:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
1273:
1182:
1152:
1129:
1110:
1075:
1053:
1001:
985:
860:
233:
112:
1203:
1035:
922:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
271:
183:
93:
33:
902:
856:
783:
230:
66:
37:
595:
1261:
is one of the obvious things that should be encoded indirectly instead of directly used.
589:
Q: There is no single authority for the
English language, so why is any of this relevant?
548:
1192:
1024:
449:
1290:
1263:
1178:
1106:
981:
1198:
1174:
1030:
568:
Q: Why is this article restricted to "languages using a Latin-derived alphabet"?
553:
954:
questioning the correctness of the "en quad" being the standard sentence space
723:
599:
473:
454:
858:
710:
689:
579:
Q: Why is the "introduction of movable-type printing" mentioned in the lede?
466:
462:
425:
232:
1281:
1251:
1215:
1186:
1168:
1145:
1114:
1069:
1047:
1017:
989:
968:
947:
1258:
1052:
I've removed it; if anyone thinks it should stay we can discuss it here.
722:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
910:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
1240:
914:] The anchor (#United Kingdom) is no longer available because it was
1098:
guides" (if not already there). It is also sourced using a blog post
469:
1085:
the following section "Effects on readability and legibility".
933:
Main Reason Commonly Given for Double Spacing Is Not Mentioned
884:
861:
777:
652:
583:
A: This excludes the topic of sentence spacing in handwriting.
538:
496:
234:
57:
15:
1078:. This section's content should probably be moved elsewhere:
1317:
Knowledge Did you know articles that are featured articles
1307:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
1125:
1173:
Thanks for taking the time to check. What do you think @
594:
with a period, question mark, or exclamation mark; use "
1234:
1121:
526:
522:
513:
508:
399:
380:
361:
342:
323:
42:
28:
202:
1302:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
1257:
Spaced en dashes are not the same as em dashes, and
1027:, but I don't see a better way to handle it here.
286:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as
424:A fact from this article appeared on Knowledge's
75:for general discussion of the article's subject.
869:This page has archives. Sections older than
216:
8:
270:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
266:as one of the best articles produced by the
260:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
46:; for the discussion at that location, see
1023:Agreed. I assume the tag was added due to
684:
500:
295:
242:
457:practice of adding two (rather than one)
656:
507:Text and/or other creative content from
1120:it should go. The promoted version is
686:
1244:2601:840:8000:B8C0:8CF0:B7E1:5B45:1E44
879:when more than 4 sections are present.
558:Frequently asked questions (see also:
7:
995:Controversy section seems fine to me
716:This article is within the scope of
675:It is of interest to the following
65:for discussing improvements to the
1327:Mid-importance Typography articles
14:
873:may be automatically archived by
888:
782:
736:Knowledge:WikiProject Typography
709:
688:
657:
547:
419:
300:
279:
246:
87:Click here to start a new topic.
19:
756:This article has been rated as
739:Template:WikiProject Typography
1282:11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1252:11:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
1216:17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
1187:17:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
1169:11:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
1146:11:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
1115:10:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
1074:I think the tag should stay @
1070:17:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
1048:16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
1018:13:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
990:11:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
969:12:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
730:and see a list of open tasks.
84:Put new text under old text.
1322:FA-Class Typography articles
1312:Old requests for peer review
948:16:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
1297:Knowledge featured articles
519:History of sentence spacing
445:The text of the entry was:
92:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1343:
407:Featured article candidate
388:Featured article candidate
350:Featured article candidate
1274:
755:
704:
683:
517:was copied or moved into
483:
416:
298:
294:
122:Be welcoming to newcomers
288:Today's featured article
29:Sentence spacing studies
876:Lowercase sigmabot III
719:WikiProject Typography
665:This article is rated
117:avoid personal attacks
465:, is a result of the
447:Did you know ...that
142:Neutral point of view
26:The contents of the
560:Sentence Spacing FAQ
525:. The former page's
147:No original research
742:Typography articles
531:provide attribution
268:Knowledge community
848:
671:content assessment
306:Article milestones
290:on August 4, 2010.
128:dispute resolution
89:
930:
929:
916:deleted by a user
905:in most browsers.
883:
882:
846:Expansion dispute
841:
836:
835:
776:
775:
772:
771:
768:
767:
651:
650:
556:
537:
536:
495:
494:
491:
490:
439:February 22, 2006
241:
240:
108:Assume good faith
85:
54:
53:
1334:
1280:
1278:
1272:
1268:
1201:
1033:
924:Reporting errors
892:
891:
885:
878:
862:
800:
799:
786:
778:
762:importance scale
744:
743:
740:
737:
734:
713:
706:
705:
700:
692:
685:
668:
662:
661:
653:
552:
551:
539:
516:
514:Sentence spacing
504:
503:
497:
486:Featured article
484:Current status:
423:
402:
383:
364:
345:
326:
305:
304:
296:
283:
258:featured article
254:Sentence spacing
250:
243:
235:
221:
220:
206:
137:Article policies
67:Sentence spacing
58:
45:
38:Sentence spacing
23:
22:
16:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1287:
1286:
1270:
1264:
1262:
1238:
1212:
1206:
1196:
1044:
1038:
1028:
997:
978:
956:
935:
926:
908:
907:
906:
889:
874:
863:
857:
791:
741:
738:
735:
732:
731:
698:
669:on Knowledge's
666:
647:
646:
596:quotation marks
563:
557:
512:
501:
479:
478:
443:
398:
379:
360:
341:
322:
299:
237:
236:
231:
163:
158:
157:
156:
133:
103:
41:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1340:
1338:
1330:
1329:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1237:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1210:
1204:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1095:
1086:
1082:
1042:
1036:
996:
993:
977:
972:
955:
952:
934:
931:
928:
927:
921:
920:
919:
903:case-sensitive
897:
896:
895:
893:
881:
880:
868:
865:
864:
859:
855:
853:
850:
849:
843:French spacing
838:
837:
834:
833:
828:
823:
817:
816:
811:
806:
793:
792:
787:
781:
774:
773:
770:
769:
766:
765:
758:Mid-importance
754:
748:
747:
745:
728:the discussion
714:
702:
701:
699:Mid‑importance
693:
681:
680:
674:
663:
649:
648:
645:
644:
641:
635:
634:
630:
624:
623:
620:
614:
613:
610:
604:
603:
598:" instead of «
591:
585:
584:
581:
575:
574:
570:
564:
546:
545:
544:
542:
535:
534:
529:now serves to
505:
493:
492:
489:
488:
481:
480:
450:French spacing
444:
418:
417:
414:
413:
410:
403:
395:
394:
391:
384:
376:
375:
372:
365:
362:April 27, 2010
357:
356:
353:
346:
343:April 12, 2010
338:
337:
334:
327:
324:April 11, 2010
319:
318:
315:
312:
308:
307:
292:
291:
284:
276:
275:
251:
239:
238:
229:
227:
226:
223:
222:
160:
159:
155:
154:
149:
144:
135:
134:
132:
131:
124:
119:
110:
104:
102:
101:
90:
81:
80:
77:
76:
70:
52:
51:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1339:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1292:
1283:
1279:
1277:
1269:
1267:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1236:
1233:
1217:
1213:
1207:
1200:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:Mike Christie
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:Mike Christie
1127:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1076:Mike Christie
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:Mike Christie
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1039:
1032:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:Mike Christie
994:
992:
991:
987:
983:
976:
973:
971:
970:
966:
962:
953:
951:
949:
945:
941:
932:
925:
917:
913:
912:
911:
904:
900:
894:
887:
886:
877:
872:
867:
866:
852:
851:
847:
844:
840:
839:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
819:
818:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
802:
801:
798:
795:
794:
790:
785:
780:
779:
763:
759:
753:
750:
749:
746:
729:
725:
721:
720:
715:
712:
708:
707:
703:
697:
694:
691:
687:
682:
678:
672:
664:
660:
655:
654:
642:
640:
637:
636:
631:
629:
626:
625:
621:
619:
616:
615:
611:
609:
606:
605:
601:
597:
592:
590:
587:
586:
582:
580:
577:
576:
571:
569:
566:
565:
561:
555:
550:
543:
541:
540:
532:
528:
524:
520:
515:
510:
506:
499:
498:
487:
482:
477:
475:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:typographical
452:
451:
441:
440:
435:
433:
432:Did you know?
427:
422:
415:
411:
409:
408:
404:
401:
400:July 15, 2010
397:
396:
392:
390:
389:
385:
382:
378:
377:
373:
371:
370:
366:
363:
359:
358:
354:
352:
351:
347:
344:
340:
339:
335:
333:
332:
328:
325:
321:
320:
316:
313:
310:
309:
303:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
244:
225:
224:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:Find sources:
162:
161:
153:
152:Verifiability
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
139:
138:
129:
125:
123:
120:
118:
114:
111:
109:
106:
105:
99:
95:
94:Learn to edit
91:
88:
83:
82:
79:
78:
74:
68:
64:
60:
59:
56:
49:
48:its talk page
44:
39:
35:
31:
30:
25:
18:
17:
1275:
1265:
1239:
998:
979:
975:WP:URFA/2020
957:
940:68.196.3.202
936:
909:
901:Anchors are
898:
870:
788:
757:
717:
677:WikiProjects
638:
627:
617:
607:
588:
578:
567:
509:this version
485:
448:
446:
437:
429:
405:
393:Not promoted
386:
381:May 27, 2010
367:
355:Not promoted
348:
329:
272:please do so
261:
253:
213:
207:
199:
192:
186:
180:
174:
164:
136:
61:This is the
55:
27:
961:41.80.175.9
950:captcrisis
474:typewriters
369:Peer review
331:Peer review
190:free images
73:not a forum
43:its history
1291:Categories
733:Typography
724:Typography
696:Typography
600:guillemets
467:monospaced
436:column on
263:identified
32:page were
831:Archive 6
826:Archive 5
821:Archive 4
814:Archive 3
809:Archive 2
804:Archive 1
523:this edit
463:full stop
426:Main Page
130:if needed
113:Be polite
63:talk page
1266:Remsense
1259:MOS:NBSP
1241:ahem ...
1179:A455bcd9
1161:contribs
1138:contribs
1107:A455bcd9
1062:contribs
1010:contribs
982:A455bcd9
789:Archives
667:FA-class
554:faq page
472:used by
461:after a
412:Promoted
374:Reviewed
336:Reviewed
98:get help
71:This is
69:article.
1235:Twinkle
1199:CWenger
1193:WP:CRIT
1175:CWenger
1165:library
1142:library
1066:library
1031:CWenger
1025:WP:CRIT
1014:library
918:before.
871:60 days
760:on the
527:history
428:in the
314:Process
196:WP refs
184:scholar
673:scale.
459:spaces
453:, the
317:Result
168:Google
34:merged
797:Index
521:with
470:fonts
256:is a
211:JSTOR
172:books
126:Seek
36:into
1248:talk
1183:talk
1157:talk
1134:talk
1126:this
1122:here
1111:talk
1091:and
1058:talk
1006:talk
986:talk
965:talk
944:talk
899:Tip:
633:1.b.
311:Date
204:FENS
178:news
115:and
1163:-
1140:-
1064:-
1012:-
752:Mid
511:of
218:TWL
1293::
1271:‥
1250:)
1214:)
1208:•
1185:)
1177:?
1167:)
1159:-
1144:)
1136:-
1113:)
1068:)
1060:-
1046:)
1040:•
1016:)
1008:-
988:)
967:)
946:)
198:)
96:;
1276:论
1246:(
1211:@
1205:^
1202:(
1197:–
1181:(
1155:(
1132:(
1109:(
1101:.
1094:.
1056:(
1043:@
1037:^
1034:(
1029:–
1004:(
984:(
963:(
942:(
764:.
679::
562:)
476:?
442:.
434:"
430:"
274:.
214:·
208:·
200:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
170:(
100:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
