Talk:Oxford spelling

Disc and disk

The article contains a table of examples. I think the row that describes disc versus disk was incorrect, or at least oversimplified, at least for American English. For example, it said that American English prefers "disc", but uses "disk" in the "computing" context. Wikipedia actually has an article devoted to the subject, Spelling of disc. I question that row of the table, at least for the American column, since I think it is not accurate to summarize the usage that way.

Contrary to what the table said, wikt:disk says "disc is standard in Commonwealth English and disk in American English". The article on American and British English spelling differences says that "Traditionally, disc used to be British and disk American." Similarly, the article on Spelling of disc says that "By the 20th century, the 'k' spelling was more popular in the United States, while the 'c' variant was preferred in the UK." So the assertion that American English prefers disc (outside of computing) is wrong – or at least oversimplified. Both spellings are found outside of computing, and the 'k' spelling is actually more common in American English. Contrary to what the table says, disk is the traditional spelling in American English (although disc seems preferred in the recording and film industries, e.g. for disc jockeys and disc records and compact discs and digital video discs, and is also preferred for disc sports, as in ultimate or disc golf). Moreover, the assertion that disk is preferred in computing is contrary to the spelling used for optical storage (e.g., CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, DVD-RW), while disk is preferred for magnetic storage (hard disk, floppy disk).

I made some adjustments to the handling of disc/disk in the table. Please review it.

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, a wiki dictionary we publish isn't a reliable source per WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR, and "disc is standard in Commonwealth English and disk in American English" is very obviously an over-simplification. Dictionaries are generally not useful anyway when it comes to specialized nuances of usage. It's correct that disk is used for magnetic and disc for optical storage. Someone else said this recently:

An anon put a long comment in an edit summary: '"Disk" is used [in US] for magnetic storage, not "disc." See: "hard disk" for example. On the contrary "disc" is only used for optical media, when media is in discussion. I would have added this information as well, however it's not clear to me that this convention is followed in other countries, and it would negatively effect the consistency by not including this for each country. I think we should be considered for addition, by someone more knowledgeable about this than me.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.178.239 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)}}

I think this is probably universal; I have never in my life seen a reliable source, regardless of country of publication, refer to "hard discs" or "compact disks, optical disks". But there is probably some truth to disk being preferred in the US (probably also Canada), aside from in reference to optical storage, and disc being preferred in British (and maybe broader Commonwealth, and probably also Irish) usage, aside from in reference to magnetic storage. This needs better investigation in modern, non-UGC reference works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering that the spelling disc/disk seems mostly to depend on the intended meaning and not the variety of English used, I'd suggest to remove it from the table altogether. As it's currently listed, it adds nothing of value, because the entries are essentially identical in all varieties. What do you think? Gawaon (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. There may be a grain of truth in there somewhere, but usage is primarily dictated now by the type of object that is the referent, so listing it here is just confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and done. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Gawaon (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bitcoin paper?

The page currently includes the sentence: "The original white paper for Bitcoin also uses it." With a reference to, well, the mentioned paper. It's WP:OR to claim that the paper uses Oxford spelling but I suppose it might be true.

More importantly, however: What's it doing here? It's one of millions of papers written in this spelling. Why single it out for mentioning here? How is it relevant for this article? "It uses Oxford spelling" can surely not be considered a sufficient explanation, since we don't specifically and individually mention the millions of other papers either. So somebody who obviously couldn't answer that question either removed it. But somebody else then restored the mention and moved it into another position. I removed it again, pointing out that it's indeed entirely irrelevant here, but that edit was reverted.

So here we are. Let's discuss it. Can anybody come up with a convincing argument why this paper, of all the millions, should be mentioned here? If not, I'll remove it again in a few days. But let's hear those arguments, if there are any. Gawaon (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like everyone would be happier if there was third-party attestation in an RS—personally, no explication in an RS, no mention for this claim imo. Remsense诉 19:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, you're sceptical too and nobody spoke up for defending its inclusion, so out it'll go. Gawaon (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is attested here, at least partially. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

...How? To my eye, it is attested not at all in what is otherwise a fluff piece:

Theories say that Nakamoto is probably from the UK because they used British English spelling for words like "favour".

Inadequate, in a word. Original research, in two words. Remsense诉 04:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you consider not original research? There are many sources which point to either the study done on the paper about the paper's spelling choices or to the paper itself, and they all point to using -ize endings with "British" spelling otherwise (such as favour). Which is...exactly what the lead sentence of the article defines is Oxford spelling. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you consider not original research?

The same as Wikipedia policy does: claims that are not attested in a reliable source. None of the sources you link say the paper uses Oxford spelling. Oxford spelling is not "-ize endings with British spelling otherwise", it's the spelling used in the OED, which is more complex than that.

This isn't pure pedantry: my point is even if you take this as meaning Oxford spelling, if you don't have a source that explicitly makes the claim you want to make it's very likely reaching and the claim is better off left out. If you want to improve this article, surely there are better-attested descriptions of important works that use it? I would imagine that's why you're here, to make Oxford spelling a better article, not for some other, tangential reason. Remsense诉 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, to make these points explicit:

• A document is generally not a reliable source for claims about the document, if they aren't made by the document itself. Exceptions are usually exceedingly trivial, such as WP:CALC.
• The Ungeared blog and Cointelegraph are clearly unreliable sources, and it's mystifying they're being presented as if they could be reliable. The other two are book reviews, usually marginally reliable about any claims that aren't the books themselves to begin with, that mention a use British spelling. We are still firmly in original research territory.

Remsense诉 05:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right that I do want to improve the article, and I think pointing out prominent examples of the spelling standard being used is a good way to do so—it gives points of reference to the user.

As for the sources, the sources are merely pointing out obvious observations about what spelling is used within the paper, which is also easily verifiable by looking at the paper itself. As for whether that constitutes Oxford spelling, I'm pointing to the clear claim in the lead of the article stating exactly what the sources are stating.

I would normally agree with you in cases where "claims" are being made that are not verifiable or seem like opinions rather than facts, but in this case, the claim is clearly verifiable. This article itself shows the examples of what constitutes Oxford spelling, and whether that is being used is evidently verifiable by any reader that reads the paper. It's a bit like having to prove that the US government uses US spelling in its documents, or that the sky is blue.

Regarding the reliability of them: Cointelegraph is not reliable? I'm not sure what your threshold of reliability is, but a commonly and widely available news source would definitely count as reliable. As for the books: so you'd rather have the sources be the books themselves? Getsnoopy (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Last poke at this one unless some reliable source drops from the sky.

which is also easily verifiable by looking at the paper itself.

No it is not. It is not a direct. trivial claim. Again, seeing 'ize' and 'colour' in the same document does not mean the author used Oxford spelling. There is a step of active analysis and interpretation here that is absent from statements like "the sky is blue", and it is called "original research".

Cointelegraph is not reliable? I'm not sure what your threshold of reliability is, but a commonly and widely available news source would definitely count as reliable.

You would be if you skimmed WP:RS for a few minutes. We also have a list of perennial sources containing community discussions regarding the reliability of outlets: while Cointelegraph is unknown enough to not have been discussed there, there are other crypto blogs that have, so maybe they will give you a thread to follow in your continuing research to improve this, the Oxford spelling article—because you have demonstrated yourself to love lexicography and promote its quality representation on Wikipedia, with how much you seem to mention it so far. Remsense诉 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I find it a bit ridiculous that there are literal blog articles being cited in the article pointing to how the King James bible uses Oxford spelling, and those have been longstanding consensus to include, but multiple actual news sources and entities pointing to such use in the Bitcoin whitepaper somehow don't constitute "reliable sources". Getsnoopy (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't put those there, and my not having said anything about them does not mean I'm part of the consensus to keep them there, believe it or not. Go ahead and remove those sources, they're garbage.

As is Cointelegraph, who tried to save you the trouble of trying to cite them as a reliable source with the tiniest of disclaimers:

No reliance. Cointelegraph does not warrant the accuracy, completeness or fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained within and shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, or decisions made or actions taken in reliance on the information.

.

Now that's a source making a direct claim about itself! I had to wade through 20 of the funniest webpages I've seen in my life before I saw this, though. Remsense诉 20:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(Indeed, the Oxford blogs are blogs and thus not subject to peer review, but they are written by people with things like relevant doctorates, and there's even a snowball's chance in hell that one of them may feel a pang of shame if they got caught lying to your face for clout. Seems there's hope for contextual reliability there after all.( Remsense诉 21:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like much of this seems to be your opinion/speculation, rather than based in the guidelines/rules of WP. Especially when it comes to:

No it is not. It is not a direct. trivial claim. Again, seeing 'ize' and 'colour' in the same document does not mean the author used Oxford spelling. There is a step of active analysis and interpretation here that is absent from statements like "the sky is blue", and it is called "original research".

There is no need to find a source that says that the US government uses US English spelling in its documents because it can easily be deduced from the works themselves, for example. The same applies in this case. It would be one thing to say "how do we know what US spelling is?", and therefore, demand a citation for that, but that doesn't really apply in this case because the entire article is dedicated to documenting the things that makes Oxford spelling distinct, and cites multiple sources for the same. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So, how do you know whether the US government uses US English spelling? Is it just a logical deduction? If yes, it certainly doesn't apply here, since we don't even know where Nakamoto lives. Plus, you haven't been able to point to a single RELIABLE source (nor even an unreliable source, for that matter) that states that the Bitcoin paper uses Oxford spelling. All we have is your own OR, your stating "I have downloaded the paper and it looks to me as if it could be OS". Yes, maybe so, but we don't do OR here. Moreover, it has nine pages (that's my own OR) – how can you even reliably decide on the basis of so little text which spelling is used? Couldn't it be Canadian English too, say? Those are quite similar, but not the same. Can you decide on the basis of the little text there is? Even if you can (I have no idea), that would still be entirely irrelevant unless you find an RS that says the same. If you manage to do that, we can then resume the discussion about whether the paper is sufficiently relevant for mentioning in this article. I would still argue for its irrelevancy in that case on the basis that "we don't cover individual papers in this article, life's too short for that" – but frankly, unless you manage to find an RS that makes this bold claim (bold, because there's probably too little textual basis for it) the question won't even arrive and this discussion is, for all practical purposes, over. Gawaon (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: Leaving this whole question of reliability aside, the Cointelegraph doesn't say a single thing about Oxford spelling. All it says is that the paper uses "the British spelling of the word “favour”". So how could that possibly be a relevant source? The other links likewise only mention "British spelling(s)" rather than saying anything about Oxford. And the linked "study" notes that "Satoshi's spelling was inconsistent in his choices of American vs. British English" – again without mentioning OS, but rather concluding that his spellings (in general, not just in this paper) may come closest to Canadian English, but don't comply with any norm. So not only is the claim that the paper uses OS entirely unsourced, for all we know it may well be wrong. Gawaon (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't agree at all that another source is needed to explicitly state that the source in question uses a certain type of spelling, because it's obviously verifiable from the source text itself (i.e., we're in WP:BLUESKY territory).

Nevertheless, the original study says things like "American spelling" (but uses -ize as the example for why it would be American, when it's clearly also British/Oxford). Moreover, the study also says that in other instances, -ise is used. This clearly excludes Canadian spelling, as it never uses -ise. The only alternative left is Oxford spelling, which is also what matches the description from the very first sentence of this article: prescribes the use of British spelling in combination with the suffix -ize in words like realize and organization instead of -ise endings. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The use of -ise also excludes Oxford spelling. Like I already stated, the study simply concludes that Nakamoto's spellings in general don't comply with any norm, giving words like "optimisation" and "serialisation" as examples that aren't valid OS either. Gawaon (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

As for "why this paper?": it's not about the paper itself, but about the technology it represents. The technology is quite prevalent today, so mentioning that has relevance from that sense.

Regarding you saying it's one of millions of papers, that's because the other papers are most likely published in journals such as Nature, so they're covered indirectly. The Bitcoin paper was published independently, and like I said, represents the technology. But the same could be said about lots of other things: why mention that the UN uses it, or that the BIPM or ISO use it? They're one in a million institutions which probably use it.

The point is to give the reader a glimpse of how widespread its use is, and how that relates to particularly international organizations using it due to its supposed neutrality. The idea is to draw a parallel to Bitcoin using it as well because of its underlying international nature. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wholly irrelevant. Unless these points are made in sources, that's entirely your improper synthesis, which is original research on Wikipedia. Remsense诉 05:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it's undeniable that Bitcoin is prevalent and therefore important enough to warrant a mention. So I'm not sure if your "wholly irrelevant" comment is aimed at that, but it's not at all irrelevant.

Secondly, the second paragraph of the article reads It is common for academic, formal, and technical writing for an international readership. Where did this sentence come from? It certainly doesn't seem to be sourced explicitly that that's why Oxford spelling is used. And Oxford spelling itself doesn't bill itself as "the international audience's spelling".

The point is that it's making an observation based on the fact that many international institutions use it, and this is no different. Bitcoin is an internet-native currency, and it also happens that its white paper uses what seems to be Oxford spelling. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it's undeniable that Bitcoin is prevalent and therefore important enough to warrant a mention.

Sure it's deniable, I would deny it. I think a lot of things are important to me and my life that I ultimately accept don't get to be in every Wikipedia article. No source making the connection, no mention.

It certainly doesn't seem to be sourced explicitly that that's why Oxford spelling is used.

If it's unsourced and you don't think it can be sourced, feel free to remove it as well. Remsense诉 05:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure it's deniable, I would deny it. I think a lot of things are important to me and my life that I ultimately accept don't get to be in every Wikipedia article. No source making the connection, no mention. Would say the same about ISO, the BIPM, and even Nature being mentioned in this article? The average person is far less likely to know about these entities than Bitcoin. But that's not even the point.

This is exactly why WP uses the policy of WP:NOTABILITY rather than the subjective heuristic of "do I think it's important?" Bitcoin satisfies those criteria very, very well.

As for the sources, see above. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You haven't even brought a single argument why/how the Bitcoin/Oxford connection should be notable. Nature is a totally different case, since it's a whole journal, not just a single paper. If anyone where to pick out any single Nature paper and mention just that one ("but it's an important paper!!"), I'd certainly remove it too. It's totally not about the content of the paper, it's that individual papers are just not the level of detail this article can deal with. Gawaon (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from, but the same could be said about any of the other examples provided in the article. Why should Nature using Oxford spelling be notable? It's one in hundreds of journals that use Oxford spelling. BIPM: same thing, but among entities rather than journals. ISO: same thing.

As for the Bitcoin/Oxford connection, I'm saying it's notable in that Bitcoin itself is notable (not only does WP have an article about it, but there's a whole chain of article surrounding that topic], and the seminal white paper that created the technology uses Oxford spelling. Hence, it's notable enough to be mentioned because of that connection. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Bitcoin as a technology is entirely irrelevant for this article, and this technology is not tied in any way to the Oxford spelling system. Would Bitcoin work any differently if the original paper had used American or the British -ise spelling? I very much doubt it! (And if you think otherwise, I'd be very curious about your reasoning.) The article on Bitcoin doesn't mention the Oxford spelling, and it's very hard to see why it should. And that's true in the opposite direction as well. No connection, no mention. Gawaon (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Would Bitcoin work any differently if the original paper had used American or the British -ise spelling? This is true of any publication, entity, etc. that uses Oxford spelling. The UN wouldn't fundamentally work differently if it used US spelling or Australian spelling vs. Oxford spelling. But it's also besides the point. We're just trying to establish points of reference for the reader to understand the prevalence/importance of the spelling standard.

The article on Bitcoin doesn't mention the Oxford spelling As doesn't the Nature article about Oxford spelling, yet the mention. Every article about entities/publications that use Oxford spelling don't have to mention that as a point for it to be considered notable enough to be included on this article, since this article is about the "metadata" of those entities. It's more of an interesting point to note about, rather than an integral part of those entities/publications' identities. Getsnoopy (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To give due weight to the view here that the Bitcoin paper is a notable example of Oxford English, we need to see it described as an example in secondary sources which are specifically discussing English variants and providing examples of users of Oxford English. Without that we are in contravention of WP:DUE as well as WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

Without such secondary sources, mention of it should be removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It already has been removed. The question is now whether it should be restored – and I'm pretty certain at this point that it won't. Also, I totally agree with what you've said. Gawaon (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)