Talk:Dionus's timeship

Dionus' timeship?

There may be a point in the style-guide suggesting this, but it seems fundamentally silly to me that we should propose to go with "Dionus' something" to discuss elements and plot details of a series literally called Dionus's War, with the "S". What do other people think? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I proposed a change to the style guide quite some time ago which led to nothing coming of it. If the forums return, I'll definitely be bringing it up again, especially since we have to say "Fitz' noun" when every book I've come across says "Fitz's noun". Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 15:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is so radical as to necessitate a Forum thread if we can build a consensus on this talk page — particularly if the proposal is to amend the policy with something along the lines of "On this point, default to what stories/titles use if they do use something else than what the guide would prescribe, the guide will just serve as the default if necessary". Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

In which case, I'd support it. I'm always having to go back over what I've written to change "TARDIS's" to "TARDIS'" and the page name of Vera Juarez' brother pains me. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 15:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I support that amendment. I can't see any downside. Bongo50 ☎ 15:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree about using "s" after the possessive apostrophe, however, I've got a better suggestion on how to implement it:

How about we don't have a rule on this?

Both methods are grammatically correct, and are used interchangeably by people. Why don't we just allow both, regardless of whether or not how a story uses them? Surely the concern of using a "s" after an apostrophe should be the least of this Wiki's concerns?

Epsilon📯 📂

15:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any concern is too small to warrant a rule for the sake of uniformity. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 16:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems very sensible. – n8 (☎) 16:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Using or not using an "s" after an apostrophe is not something we should be trying to write a policy about. This is a bloody Wiki about Doctor Who, not the Oxford Dictionary. Both are acceptable under British English.

Besides, as it stands, if we go with "s" after an apostrophe now, we will have apostrophes with and without "s" following them, as we've been doing without them as a convention as dictated by policy, so to save on work, how about we just... allow both?

Epsilon📯 📂

18:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What's so hard to understand about style guides? They're not restricted to dictionaries, every publisher has one, and ours is a fraction the size of WP:MOS. Since they're inherently aspirational, it doesn't matter whether we meet it today, but it guides us going forwards. I don't see how that can be a bad thing. – n8 (☎) 19:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how one small addition to the style guide could result in anything remotely objectionable. If having articles on Shrek characters because a somewhat blurry poster is seen in the background of a Torchwood episode doesn't make this site any less of a Doctor Who Wiki, why would this? Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 19:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just want to add I am also in support of the 's. It's not like we'd have to go vigilantly changing it in every page (though you could), but if you see it, you can fix it. Then we can do some renames and just remember to do so in the future. That said, the current policy is the opposite on Tardis:Apostrophe. Also, just a reminder for clarity that there is never an s if the noun is plural, e.g. "my parents' house". Chubby Potato ☎ 11:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, that paragraph on Tardis:Apostrophe is what we are proposing to alter. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care about which way we go on this, but to answer the question on why do we even need to make a style rule for this: to avoid edit wars. Yes people really do get into edit wars over small things like this, and if we define a specific policy (like we've done with spelling and other grammar) then there is a means to stop an edit war. Shambala108 ☎ 16:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth I really do think that if the work itself has mispelled something, in this case an obvious flaw in a faultly addition of an s after an s that is followed by apostrophe, we really should keep this faulty grammar decision on the rest of the related pages. Not because it’s correct, because it certainly isn’t, but because it would be consistent to the original. ——Danniesen ☎ 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not "faulty" or an "obvious flaw". Both conventions are well-represented, and unless you're taking an arbitrary prescriptivist position, both are correct. All that matters is that the Wiki be consistent. The fact of the matter is that most DWU sources go with the [ Davros's ] convention rather than the [ Davros' ] convention. Neither's incorrect — that is not up for debate, and it never has been. The question is what convention the Wiki will decide to adopt. I think it brings us closer to most DWU sources to go with the "restating the S" trend. Most people on here seem to agree. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have always been told that s's is incorrect and it needs to be s'. However, it is entirely possible that it’s country-based. But let’s not stray from the purpose of the discussion. ——Danniesen ☎ 18:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)