Forum:CT Archive/Re-evaluating the S apostrophe issue

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was to allow either s's or s' provided each article is consistent throughout, while encouraging (but not requiring) users to use s' after a name that ends in a Z-sound. -- Gonk ^(Gonk!) 12:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's been some discussion lately about our having a policy to force an S after a possessive apostrophe for a name that ends in S. We had a CT on the matter almost 2 years ago, but I think it suffered from a number of problems. There seemed to be a lot of misinformation there as to one way being "right" or "proper", which is not the case for this issue (but more on that in a bit). There was also very little participation in the CT: only nine users, and only one of whom was an administrator at the time. (I could even note that one of the opposition leaders was infamous for his grammar book…which he couldn't find…which belonged to his friend…)

Anyway, this is a complicated issue, and not as black and white as people on either side would like to make it. I'd encourage people to do their own research on the issue, and not just push whatever they're used to using. Also, before we put this to a vote, I'd like our resident grammarian to chime in, if he gets a chance, as his insight would be helpful.

But what I'd eventually like to propose is not a new rule or changing a rule, but simply reverting to not requiring a certain way by policy. Wikipedia's Manual of Style simply notes that "usage varies" and asks for users to "maintain consistency" within articles; I think it would be best for everyone if we did the same here. If one article does it this way, fine; if another article does it that way, fine; if there's concern about which way to go, use what most common in the relevant sources. -- Ozzel 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think a no policy is a good idea, as long as there is consistency within a single article. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ozzel's proposal. There truly is no hard-and-fast "correct/incorrect" for this; the closest I have seen is the advice—repeated in several sources, and yes I can cite one if anybody wants ;) —that you base your decision to include or exclude the post-apostrophe S on how the word would "sound." If it would be more awkward to sound out the second S, then omit it—but even this guideline is subject to personal interpretation. I may feel that (for example) Archimedes's sounds lame, because you have the "Z"-like S sound twice in a row, but someone else may not have a problem with that. Likewise, I may feel Sidious's is fine to pronounce, but someone else may not. If I were to make any adjustment at all to Ozzel's proposal, it would be to encourage (but not require) users to omit the second S after a name whose end sound is "Z"-like. But I could certainly live without that, and Ozzel is right: we should focus our efforts (and our policy) on consistency in each individual article and let canon be our guide, where necessary; it's also worth remembering that canon screws up stuff like this all the time. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I like it. Good idea Ozzel. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, let's do this then. -- Ozzel 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to modify this section of the MOS

[edit] Require s's (current policy)

1. For the same reasons I stated in the past CT. Your fingers will suffer no damage for typing an ' and an s after each other. - TopAce ^(Talk) 11:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. If intra-article consistency is important, then so is inter-article consistency. jSarek 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Per jSarek, a strong support. Havac 00:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Per jSarek. People who care about grammar will be confused. DC 00:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
   • Let me clarify the real goal of this thread. If we enforce either s's or s', that decision will be entirely arbitrary. In many cases, probably most, either one is perfectly grammatically acceptable, and enforcement of either one across all our articles will just result in more back-and-forth "but I think this is right!" nonsense as seen in the previous CT. Instead, what we seek to do here is allow flexibility to prevent ceaseless chasing of our tails. The English language is a messy thing, frequently internally inconsistent, and as a result it's very often impossible to be a linguafascist about it, no matter how much one might want to be. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 12:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Require s'

[edit] Allow both, as long as articles are consistent, with suggestions for usage (per Gonk), and rely on canon if in doubt

1. Ozzel 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Greyman^(Talk) 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
3. On the assurance that Gonk's guideline will be added to the MOS. Graestan^(Talk) 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Meh. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 23:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I tend to use both anyway. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Yay instruction decreep! - Lord Hydronium 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Per GT. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
9. This is how my Book of Everything says to do it. I'd post a scan, but the book is invisible. I have it read to me by my friend, the Ghost That Never Lies. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Unit 8311 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Kriff. I hate being the only Tolaris Shim out of the bunch. I relent.—Tommy ^{(There are no Jedi here)} 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
12. I'd also vote for no second s as that is what I'd use, but this will suit my purposes. --Eyrezer 11:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Please Thefourdotelipsis 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Yes please. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Indeed.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
16. If I don't have to read "Sidiousesechz" anymore. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, per Gonk's suggestions, "Sidious" would be one of the words that received an apostrophe and "s." Graestan^(Talk) 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
17. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Bah. Because being the sole voter for s' would be less than enjoyable. Darth Xadún^{(Consult the Holocron)} 11:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Has anyone considered that pronunciation isn't established for a vast majority of canon? Also, calling how writers and publishers punctuate isn't "canon" at all. That's like saying everything in Star Wars is ten point Times New Roman. Graestan^(Talk) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, I was just trying not to make that heading any longer. :-p However, there are cases were it would be a matter of canon, like if there was a place named "Francis' Café" or something. But what I meant was that we go by what is most used in canonical sources. -- Ozzel 22:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• A query. If we regard consistency as important, why should we only be consistent within an article, instead of across the entire wiki? jSarek 11:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good question. I'm guessing that intractable authors are the target of such lenient wording. I've gone through and updated to s's per our previous policy, only to have the article's author turn around and revert it. Graestan^(Talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Consistency has its limits, especially when it comes to the English language, fraught as it is with exceptions and counterexceptions and downright illogical crap. Sometimes you have to be inconsistent to be correct. ...I just blew my own mind, man. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• And who will determine which article will use which option? The one who created the page? The one with the most edits in it? An admin/an Inquisitor? Anyone from a select few? Unless this is clarified, there will be edit wars. At least I would refuse to use the s' form, and try to push it. I will vote for the s's way, even if I will be the only one to say that. I don't see why adding one s after an apostrophe is any painful. All the novels that I have read so far use s's. These novels were written and edited by people who know more about proper usage than any five or six of us combined. This is indicative, I think. - TopAce ^(Talk) 11:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit wars over something this trivial would be stupid indeed. The warring parties would have to change every instance of the one to the other in an article, since the policy we're proposing is consistency within each article. Not that I'm disagreeing that edit wars might happen, of course. What I do disagree with is the assertion that novel writers and editors know more about proper usage. You would think that would be the case, but the reality is that even the good editors are beholden to stylebooks that make far more arbitrary decisions about this sort of thing than us hyperbureaucratic wikis do. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • A sidenote, if I may: Even if the new "S apostrophe" policy gets enacted, then the s's way remains in the great majority of our articles anyway. If you change all the "Nihilus's" to "Nihilus'", you would break the already established consistency within that article. Since I've been doing these sort of s' --> s's edits for quite some time—not as frequently in the past few monrhs as before, but still—I'm sure that most semi-major characters' articles use the s's way. Perhaps some changes are reasonable, per pronunciation issues. I admit disliking the s' way still, but pronouncing "Visasez" is awkward. (Side note wihin side note: There was only one instance when I saw the s's spelling in KotOR, and that happened to be one of the Exile's conversation choices that says something like: "I figured out what happened to Visas's homeworld." to Kreia.) Weird stuff, no doubt. Ok, so all in all, I submit myself to this new policy, considering that I ever start editing Wookieepedia again as frequently as I used to. If I see an s's spelling if there are three s' spellings, then I will change the s's accordingly, no matter my leanings toward s's. - TopAce ^(Talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Pronouncing "Visas's" is awkward? At any rate, I think we should just eschew all this circumlocution and go with Ozzel's and Gonk's proposals. Graestan^(Talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)