User talk:Jay
Hello Jay, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela
It's not grammar, exactly: it's half Wikipedia markup, half the difference between different forms of the language. If you enter ''sample text'' the software renders it as sample text (i.e., in italics). Other than that, US writers and editors use double quotes (", not '') first, then single quotes within those if necessary for quotes within quotes. British writers and editors do the reverse. The convention in philosophy is as you described: single quotes to signify that a term is being used as a word, not for its meaning.
I hope that helps, or at least doesn't confuse you further.Vicki Rosenzweig 23:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
See the 2003-08-31t11:31z Talk:Mohandas Gandhi entry for why I think "Mohandas" is better. If someone were to search for the "Mahatma" version, they'd be redirected - work for the servers; reducing some of the internal redirects lessens the work for the servers. Do you think we should discuss Mahatma vs. Mohandas more before I make more changes? Thanks for picking up the road name error, I've linked to Mohandas while showing Mahatma. - Jeandré, 2003-09-01t21:08z
I know but I went there to change the formatting on the "see also" and whilst I was there I thought I might as well change the "it's" as well. I wouldn't have edited it only to do that. It wasn't wrong - just my preference! There are many articles where it's (meaning something belonging to 'it') is wrong though and those I do change. Angela 18:07, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
When I am the only one editing the page -- its quite unreasonable to argue that I am "clogging" the edit history. LirQ
Although I highly doubt that going through the edit histories is that important or useful -- and I highly doubt that my edits will render this task appreciably more difficult -- if, you actually believe this, then you should advocate that a simple feature be coded (as akin to the latest version of Recent Changes) which merges repeat edits (by a single user) into one lone edit. LirQ