Thread:GoosebumpsArt/@comment-4207976-20171207053235/@comment-28171460-20171209205805

I recently decided to search whether it was proper to put a period outside of quotation marks, and the answer is stupid.


 * "in American English we always put periods and commas inside quotation marks, but in British English periods and commas can go inside or outside"


 * "What if the thing in quotation marks is a title? What if it’s a word being defined? Nope."


 * Source

That is so aggravatingly dumb! Lemme' give you a "proper" sentence that shows how dumb this rule is.


 * The final story in More & More Tales to Give You Goosebumps is "What's Cooking?."

That is atrocious. We literally have to ignore logic in order to keep up with a rule designed to protect type writers.


 * "Compositors―people who layout printed material with type―made the original rule that placed periods and commas inside quotation marks to protect the small metal pieces of type from breaking off the end of the sentence."

The only exception in American English to this rule is for typing commands:


 * "when you’re designating something that a user should type into a text box, it’s important for readers to know whether the punctuation should be included in what they type. In such instances, it’s OK to break the traditional rules and put periods and commas outside the quotation marks if it makes your meaning clearer"

I believe that putting a period into a title when it doesn't belong there extrinsically changes the text. According to the article, you should "put periods and commas outside the quotation marks if it makes your meaning clearer", and I think that applies to all scenarios. Why should I add a comma inside a quote if it wasn't a part of what the source said? For question marks or exclamation points, that's what you're supposed to do, so why are periods and commas different? This Wiki should follow Britain in regards to this particular rule because the alternative is ridiculous.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to vent.