Talk:Common English usage misconceptions/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:16, 9 January 2013

Latest revision as of 01:28, 18 January 2015

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 186:

::::: I somewhat resent the thrust behind #1. My primary concern with the inclusion of hyphens vs. dashes is to do with the fact that it doesn't fit into what I see as the more appropriate definition of a misconception (i.e. incorrect knowledge you might harbor as opposed to simply not knowing something and having the wrong intuition if confronted with the question). That said, as for the citations - I see three citations here, two of which are university style guides which, whether or not they are reliable sources (we can even assume they are) are trying to convey something about the prescriptivist rules of typography in a specific setting. There are dozens of citations for the concept that any language is defined by usage (this point is underscored likely by most of the citations in this article alone), and what's an appropriate style for a graded university class is very likely stricter than the actual rules of English. The third citation is a book that I don't have access to at the moment called "Reviving the Rules of Typography", which ''in its title'' demonstrates the phenomenon that is a known bugbear of linguists - prescriptivist attempts to revive rules that have fallen out of actual common English usage. I don't doubt that the sources reliably explain the historical differences between en and em dashes, but by dictating that, in spite of the fact that the prevailing common use has changed, the rules of English typography continue to include a differentiation between hyphens and dashes, they are taking a specific non-objective stance in opposition to a strong linguistic consensus, which is unencyclopedic.

:::::Even if I agreed that there is a "common misconception" among people on this issue (I don't think there's any conception, honestly), I would still oppose inclusion in the article because it's advocacy for a certain form of English, not a description of how English is actually used. If anything, the encyclopedic way to write it would be, "Although today most people make no differentiation between hyphens and dashes, there are actually three different glyphs represented by a straight horizontal line, differentiated by their length, which have historically had distinct uses." The problem for using that phrasing in this article, however, is that it admits that there is no misconception, but rather that a typographical rule is starting to fade away as hyphens and dashes have become interchangeable.[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== RfC: Hyphens/Dashes misconception ==

Does the hyphens/dashes entry meet the criteria for inclusion in the article? [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

: Summarizing my above statements, I'm going to say no, this does not meet the criteria for inclusion because I've seen no evidence that people actively harbor an active misconception about the usage of hyphens and dashes. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::30654 brings up another good point, one I thought of when formulating my third opinion but did not articulate well. Many of the other entries are based on normative "rules" that should not necessarily be followed since they have a weak, irrational, or groundless basis, this one is the opposite in a lot of ways. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 00:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::It would be useful to list the criterions for the article (listed at the top of this talk page) in this RfC. I invite editors to determine if the entry meets these criterions and not bring in additional requirements that are in place at other articles. The criterions for inclusion are that an entry:

:::*(1) show that the misconception is widespread

:::*(2) focus on the misconception, not any dispute on usage

:::*(3) be supported by at least one reliable source that outlines both 1 and 2 above

:::A source from the University of Houston-Victoria Education Center states that, "Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same, but, in fact, dashes are used to structure sentences, while hyphens are used to connect the parts of compound words and between some prefixes and root words". A second source makes a very similar statement. These appear to meet the criterions for inclusion. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::::I think everyone agrees it's a common error. The problem is that there is no "rule" saying "use hyphens everywhere", that is widely taught, repeated, or believed, which to me is the essence of a misconception. Error from ignorance is not the same thing as a misconception. Airborne I know you created this article and did the majority of the work on it, but at some point you need to let your baby leave the nest. It seems to me that the inclusion criteria need to be refined a little, since now you have three editors agreeing that a common error and a common misconception are not the same thing. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 13:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I support removal, for all the reasons given above. I also think this page should adopt the convention agreed to at [[List of common misconceptions]] that distinguishes between misconception and simple ignorance. ("a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect — not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them.") [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:I don't think the opinions here unreasonable; I just think we're being overly bureaucratic to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist at this article. There are definitions for misconceptions that don't require a "rule" to be widely taught for a misconception to exist. For example, the Cambridge Online Dictionary (the first one I looked up) states that a misconception is, "an idea which is wrong because it has been based on a failure to understand a situation". The first example given is "We hope our work will help to change popular misconceptions about disabled people". "Failure to understand a situation" can happen from ignorance (and is likely the case for hyphen-dashes misuse), and I doubt people are taught "rules" or absolutes about disabled people. They are likely just ignorant. This dictionary definition is about a false idea based on ignorance. I understand why it was necessary to take a very narrow view of misconceptions at List of common misconceptions. But the problem which led to that requirement is not needed here.

:In any case, not to worry. I will adhere to the consensus. But I wouldn't mind getting the opinion of some editors who aren't used to trying to manage the [[List of common misconceptions]] article. The RfC is only a day old and there is no particular rush that I know of. I doubt that there's a reason to wait 30 days either, but why don't we give it some time? Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:: Very strong points here. Definitely agree to letting it play out and seeing if we can get some other opinions in here.

:: As for your other concerns, I'm decently active in List of Common Misconceptions and I'd say that trimming the article down doesn't seem to be a significant concern of mine. I think that the operational definition of misconceptions that we use over there isn't specifically chosen to keep the article trim but to keep the article conceptually coherent, and I do think it should apply here. I don't think anyone's looking for a list of paradoxes or just poorly understood stuff when they come to a list like that - they're looking to weed out the stuff they ''thought'' they knew, but don't. I imagine a lot of people don't know when to use who/whom, but I would similarly not propose that for inclusion here because again I think that while people don't know how to use them, they aren't harboring mis-formed conceptions about them. I think the narrower definition of misconception is certainly appropriate here even though this list might not have as wide a scope as List of Common Misconceptions. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::(shrug) According to the sources, "Many people ''think'' that dashes and hyphens are the same, but [they're not]" (my emphasis). I don't see how that's different than what you just said. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::: Well, the difference is between not noticing that there are dashes with different length and thinking that the dashes of different length mean the same thing. If you showed me a picture of a bunch of penguins I might think that they're all the same kind of penguin, and if you told me, "Some of these are Emperor penguins and some are puffins" or whatever, I'd say, "Oh, I didn't know that." I never really would have formed an opinion as to how many kinds of penguin there were in the picture. If you asked me, I might even get it wrong, but I'm not actively harboring a misconception because I haven't really formed a conception in the first place. If instead you told me I could tell a male penguin from a female penguin because all female penguins have green feet, I'd think I knew how to tell a male from a female, but I'd be wrong. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::I think we can both agree that it would be nice to have someone (or something) available to let you know that "Some of these are Emperor penguins and some are puffins"...

:::::But I think we've laid out our positions at this point. Let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::Since there doesn't seem to be any more interest in commenting on the RfC, I removed the entry. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

== Automatic archiving? ==

This page is getting a bit long - I didn't want to do anything out of turn, but maybe we should have the page archived by [[User:MiszaBot I]]? Not sure what the optimal parameters are for this, but maybe an incremental archive, 2 months with archive sizes of 70K looks good to me. the code for this is:

<pre>

<nowiki>

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(60d)

| archive = Talk: Common English usage misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1

| maxarchivesize = 70K

| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 4

}}

</nowiki>

</pre>

It seems like [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] and [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] are the people who have primarily been active in this page, so if you guys agree I'd say we should go ahead. --[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 22:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:I would support "plain vanilla" auto archiving, and was under the assumption that it was already in place. If it's not, then let's do. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:: According to [[User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo|this]], it seems like the one I've posted above is the most common archive method. I don't see any archive code in the page, so I don't think it's implemented. Plus this page is huge, so even if it were implemented, the settings probably would need to be tweaked a bit. --[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::: Sounds fine to me. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::Then I'd say put these settings into place, as they are the most common. If someone feels the need to tweak the settings later, I'm ok with that too. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::: OK, I've put it at the top of the page. Not sure when it kicks in or if anything on the page qualifies yet because of the 2-month window. I'll check back in a week and make sure it's working. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::Now that the archiving has occurred, I see that the Guidelines section that opened the page is no longer there. We probably need to make that "sticky". [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::: <strike>Good point. I'll see about doing that.</strike> Done. --[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 01:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

== Bizarre entry ==

A previous user had hidden the following text, commenting--sagely, I think--that "this needs to be re-written to be more understandable, or removed. Perhaps better examples would help, assuming this entire entry is not merely a hoax."

{{bq|'''Misconception:''' ''All phrases in speech that include a preposition are considered to be prepositional phrases''. This misconception originates from a misunderstanding of the word "preposition".{{citation needed|date=January 2012}} For a complement to be defined as a preposition, the word must be positioned before the other parts of speech in the phrase; e.g., "I walked home '''from the park'''". An [[adpositional phrase]], on the other hand, represents all complements of a phrase that the prepositional phrase is a subset of. [[Preposition and postposition|Circumpositions and postpositions]] also fall under the adposition category.}}

I've gone ahead and removed it, given its unsourcedness, its pedantry, and its (as far as I can tell) total irrelevance and lack of notability. Made me chuckle, though.--[[User:Lemuellio|Lemuellio]] ([[User talk:Lemuellio|talk]]) 04:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

: Ouch ... now that I read the above, I notice how mean it sounds in print. My sincere apologies to the writer of the entry!--[[User:Lemuellio|Lemuellio]] ([[User talk:Lemuellio|talk]]) 04:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

== Academic/Scientific Writing ==

Academic writing in the sciences such as dissertations and journal submissions follow many of these rules. For example double spacing sentences and not using contractions. You can check guidelines for submitting articles to Royal Society of Chemistry Journals. Scientific writing is also supposed to be written in passive voice. Furthermore Shakespeare was a poet? author? so why is his grammar being used to prove misconceptions? Authors have poetic license to do as they please it would similar to saying sentences do not need to be capitalized because e e cummings wrote without capitalizing his works.

[[Special:Contributions/163.118.206.80|163.118.206.80]] ([[User talk:163.118.206.80|talk]]) 06:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

:"Scientific writing is also supposed to be written in passive voice."

:The American Psychological Association prefers the active voice: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/15/ [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

== Split infinitives ==

For the new editor adding the material to the infinitives section, please provide a source before adding the material again. Please also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:BRD|reverting and discussing]].

A relevant source is needed because many people have their opinions on English, but it may not be the case that a particular opinion is held in high regard by [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], or that those sources think a particular fact has any bearing on a topic. As editors, we don't note our opinions here; only the opinions of reliable sources. Thanks for your interest. [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)