User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Spelling debates
XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Spelling debates/Thread:129007
So now that we have a full-on televised episode presenting us with (the American) spelling of encyclopaedia — Encyclopedia Gallifreya — do we drop the vestigial "ae" and go with just "e", or do we look on this as a one-off case?
There are also several reference books that go with the American spelling.
- CzechOut
The following novels definitely use encyclopedia:
- Wetworld
- Option Lock
- Placebo Effect
- Father Time
- Unnatural History
- The Year of Intelligent Tigers
- SLEEPY
- Time of Your Life
The following novels definitely use encyclopaedia
- The Glamour Chase, which is a bit odd since its author, Gary Russell also wrote Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia
- The Scales of Injustice
- The Domino Effect
- Grimm Reality
- GodEngine
- Christmas on a Rational Planet
- The Well-Mannered War
The following specific encyclopedias are almost always given as Encyclopaedia
- Brittanica (Seeing I, Warchild, Strange England — though in Genesys its American spelling)
- Collier's (The Adventuress of Henrietta Street)
- Universalis (The Also People)
- Domino Enyclopaedia of Europa (Managra)
The following specific encyclopaedias are given as Encyclopedia
- Encylopedia Gallifreya (TV: Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS)
Pretty sure that all non-fictional encyclopadias in the franchise history have American spelling.
- SOTO
Ooh, 7:7... So can't decide on that factor...
Do we yet have one definitive rule concerning spelling debates? We can't really fall back on the "artefact/artifact" ruling, since they both seem to be equally used.
Also, I think there's one non-fictional encyclopedia called 'encyclopaedia', but I can't remember its name...
At this point, I'm entirely impartial, and I'm fine with it going either way, as long as its consistent. That being said, I do think that Brittanica's definitely an encyclopaedia, and Gallifreya's definitely an encyclopedia. Or rather, that's definitely how their names are spelled.
As for the rest, if it comes down to a perfect tie between number of usages, I'd go with the British spelling, as we do generally promote British spelling on this wiki. Though, once again, I'm fine with it being the other way around, too.
- CzechOut
So basically what this seems to show to me is that no publisher, no range, had a house rule on the spelling of the word. You've got Gary Russell using ae when he feels like it in MA and NSA ranges, but not in his EDA. You've got some EDAs going one way and some the other, some MAs going one way and the other, and not even complete agreement on the grandaddy of them all, Encyclop(a)edia Brittanica.
- CzechOut
No there's no rule for how we decide spelling debates. They're arbitrary. I wouldn't call these results a "perfect tie". It's not a numbers game really. I would say that this merely demonstrates that the spelling has been entirely random in DW publishing history. The only pattern I see is that editors of the ranges consistently didn't care how the word was spelled, even to the point that individual authors flipped back and forth.
The other factor, which I haven't laid out in as much detail, is that it's always American in the title of DW reference books. So
- Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia
- The Completely Useless Encyclopedia
- Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who
- The Completely Unofficial Encyclopedia
- Torchwood: The Encyclopedia
- Character Encyclopedia
- this list may include redlinks, but the books definitely use American spelling
- SOTO
Doctor Who DVD Files also uses 'encyclopedia' in all their cover headers.
So, in-universe, it's rather arbitrary, and, in the Who-related real world, 'encyclopedia' is by far the predominant spelling.
So there's two points for using 'encyclopedia':
- All Who reference books use it.
- It's recognisable to all, while 'encyclopaedia' might seem wrong to some readers.
- CzechOut
Another possibility is that we take our cues from DWU publishers and we just don't correct for it at all. Let people put whatever they want to. We could simply choose to exempt this word entirely from SBOT.
- SOTO
That is a possibility. We could always just use whatever's used in the context (or, if spelling's not given, whatever's most used in that medium/series). I would prefer to have one spelling for all, though.
- Anoted
What exactly are we deciding here? I'm a bit confused.
What I mean is, if we decide to use ae, does that mean that the sentence "The Doctor reads an encyclopaedia" would be appropriate in the articles for Wetworld and The Glamour Chase? Or are we just talking about what spelling to use when talking about encyclopeadias generically?
- CzechOut
We're making an editorial decision as to which spelling of encyclopaedia will be enforced by SBOT, or whether we're going to specifically choose to not correct for it at all.
See T:SPELL and, if you're very brave, this rather nerdy discussion.
- Imamadmad
On story pages, it should be however it is written in that story. If it's a names encyclopedia, then go with how it is spelled in in-universe sources. In cases such as Brittanica and pages referring to multiple story's or encyclopedias in general, it should be the editor's choice. So basically, I don't think the spellbot should be doing this because there are situations where it is more apropriate to use one spelling over the other, so it should just be the individual editors that check that things match up. Harder to control that way, but matches up better to the DWU. I think it would be bad form to contradict in-universe evidence by calling it Encyclopaedia Gallifreya or Domino Enyclopedia of Europa.
- Anoted
Is there any reason we can't create hidden categories for articles that use the spelling PED and articles that use the spelling AE?
The categories would go on the page of anything with the word enclopedia in the title. We could also add these categories to the novels. Wetword uses the spelling PED so we use that spelling on the Wetword page. Glamour Chase uses the spelling AE so we use that spelling on the Glamour Chase page. We could add a notification to pages that use AE reminding editors to use AE and a notification to pages that use PED reminding editors to use PED.
Unless this is not technically feasible.
- CzechOut
It's not.
- Anoted
Which part, the categories, the notifications or both? If it isn't technically feasible for the spelling bot to enforce spelling by category, then I'm in favour of a non-spelling bot enforced decision.
That is a decision based on whatever level of nuance we deem appropriate whether or not it can be bot-enforced. I don't want to sacrifice the proper spellings of titles in order to make an enforceable decision for example.
Is there any reason we can't have hidden categories for the spellings that are non-bot enforced? Even if we just use then to spell titles properly it seems like this could be helpful.
- Tangerineduel
Based on the spread of works that the spellings have appeared in I don't think we need to enforce the spelling.
For the specific encyclopaedias in-universe (be they fictional or not) we should use what's used in-universe. When there's multiple examples as with Brittanica we use the most commonly used spelling and note the other spelling of it in the article.
I agree with Imamadmad that on the individual story pages we maintain (if possible) the spelling used in those stories.
- CzechOut
Anoted wrote: Which part, the categories, the notifications or both? If it isn't technically feasible for the spelling bot to enforce spelling by category, then I'm in favour of a non-spelling bot enforced decision.
All of it. I mean, I see where you're coming from. Bots do normally need categories to run. But this is one case where that logic doesn't work.
As a matter of practicality, any solution which doesn't involve at least partial enforcement by SBOT running in namespace mode is not acceptable. T:SPELL makes very clear that spelling rules are enforced "in namespace 0" — not in a category of the namespace. A per-category solution thus goes contrary to this rule.
The main technical reason categories won't work here is actually a sort of human reason. It would require people adding hidden categories. They're not going to do that. And I don't think any admin really wants to be going to someone's page and saying, "Naughty, naughty: You forgot to add the hidden encyclopaedia category". It's just red tape.
Moreover, the vast majority of users, over time, will never have read this discussion, or be aware that there's a difference in spelling for encyclopaedia. They'll happily edit using whichever spelling they think appropriate, or whichever spelling their computer tells them is right.
Obviously, if we can't rely upon categories being emplaced, we can't logically build a solution around that concept. Since all regular pages are automatically placed in namespace 0, only a namespace-based solution will work.
That's why the question before us is predicated on the notion of universally choosing between two spellings.
- Anoted
The problem with the notion of universally choosing between two spellings is that we'd be violating in-universe roughly 50% of the time. That seems like a bad idea to me.
I'm with Tangerinduel and Imamadmad here: my interest is in spelling the titles of books properly and if possible maintain the spelling throughout the article.
I just see categories as a way to make this easier and keep things clear, and I think that the human problem can be tackled fairly easily. It certainly seems vastly easier compared to the alternative. I know, you're saying, didn't that just get shot down? Just hear me out:
Right now, if I'm editing an article and I get to the word Encyclopedia I'm stuck unless I both know and remember how the source spelled it. This is doable with an article like Encyclopedia Gallifreya where I can look to the title for the proper spelling. It's a much safer assumption that a page title is spelled correctly than it is that an unlinked name is. But we only have one Encyclopedia article, so if I'm editing anything else, like The Also People then I'm stuck. If I start to edit a section in an article in order to fix the lack of BritSpeak, I get stalled hard when I hit the word "Encyclopedia". Is that correct, or is that a product of the writer using American English? I don't have a clue. Worse, I don't have a way to get a clue.
This gets even more complicated when you tackle the issue of Brittanica and encyclopedias that have been spelled both ways. We seems to have consensus that for these, we go with majority rule. But if I've just read Genesys and start to work on its article, (or on Encyclopaedia Brittanica), I have no way of knowing that my going to the source material for spelling is wrong. Without anything to tell me otherwise, I go by the source. I could easily see someone moving an article page because that that's not how it's spelled in Who. That's a mess, precisely because of just how much of an exception this is.
So I propose that we add a section at T:SPELL, explaining that we use whichever spelling of encyclopedia that's used in-universe and that this varies, sometimes even in reference to the same book. We could keep a small list of which encyclopedias use which spelling on the policy page. This is important, because you're not going to know which spelling is used for Brittanica the majority of the time without being told. T:SPELL could then link to a page where we have a list of what spelling is used when encylopedia is being referred to generically. I don't think we can maintain the spelling used in the stories without a list. If the policy page explained that there was a category for each spelling then editors would be aware of this, and hopefully use them. Going to T:SPELL, and seeing what's what is great. I may not have a clue, but now I can at least buy one. But it would be even better if the article was in a hidden category "Articles that use American spelling for Encyclopedia". We could write a one line description on the category that refers people to T:SPELL. We could even add hidden text or a description on the article pages that use this.
There would be a little set-up work, but once it's in place this would be a lifesaver. It would make editing vastly easier for editors who are trying to maintain proper spelling and don't have a source to check, and it wouldn't require much work for editors to add an item to a list and a category to a page when new sources come out. They don't even have to be the ones to add the category. They just have to add it to the list, or drop a note on the corresponding talk page saying "the spelling is ____ in the newly released book _____. See page ___. And if I've understand CzechOUt correctly in regard to what the issue is with the boy, I think that this would fix it and let us enforce this by bot. Even if it doesn't, or perhaps especially if it doesn't, this enables editors to maintain consistent spelling without a bot presence.
The thing to keep in mind is that making this decision doesn't do us a lot of good unless editors know what to use when. Categories seem like an enormous aid in this. They let us have fairly complicated rules like this without requiring extra knowledge or awareness from editors.
I just want to reiterate that my main goal is seeing that titles are properly spelled. I am fundamentally against making a universal decision. I don't want Encylopedia Gallifreya being spelled AE or Encyclopaedia Brittanica spelled PED. If people are fundamentally against categories and maintenance lists, then I think we should really just let catch as catch can. I'd rather have loads of inconsistent articles then have misspelled titles. Inconsistent beats incorrect hands down. I'd like to think that we could achieve both accuracy and consistency (and I've laid out a plan that I think achieves that), but at the very least we need to be accurate.
- CzechOut
This thread is merely a discussion about the spelling of one word, as provided for by both T:SPELL itself and T:SBOT LIST. The result of this discussion will be to change the coding — or not — on T:SBOT, and to determine the nominally "most correct" spelling for the purposes of starting articles. We will not be creating any sort of categorical structure as a consequence of this discussion. Spelling cannot be efficiently maintained through categories, so please let that idea die its natural death.
While one possible outcome of this discussion might well be that we simply change SBOT to not correct for encyclopaedia, we do at least need to decide on the spelling of Encyclopaedia Britannica, since an attempt has been made to start a page on it, and since different in-universe spellings can be demonstrated. We also need to decide on the spelling for any future page on encyclopedias in general, since there's obviously enough material to start such a page.
Because we do have to have one of the two spellings in order to even start these two pages, there will be a "correct" spelling whether we like it or not. So which will it be?
And since there is only going to be one possible page name, should the bot not simply correct to that page name? Is there a real advantage to allowing the use of redirects in the text of pages?
- SOTO
Well, I think for Brittanica, we might let a little bit of real world seep in, and use the obviously correct "encyclopaedia" in that context. I might say otherwise if the DWU disagreed, but the Whoniverse seems kinda neutral on that point.
As for in general, if we can't decide based on its uses in the DWU, then we should probably go for 'ae' here too, as it's more generally accepted in Britain (hence it always being first in the entry in a British dictionary).
But, honestly, as long as we can decide, I'm fine wither way.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Spelling debates/Thread:149138
The article "Whiskey" uses the Irish/American spelling throughout. I gather the policy here is to use British spellings, whcih would mean that for any spoken use it ought to be "whisky" unless indicated otherwise, and any print uses ought to follow whatever was actually published (and that will most probably be "whisky"). Thoughts appreciated, especially from somebody who knows how to change the name of the article
- CzechOut
Yeah, I pondered this one at the time of article creation and frankly should have stepped in then to correct it. Thing is that although whisky is dominant, whiskey is hardly absent. In the book ranges published before the New Series Adventures started, the tally is something like this:
Amusingly — to me, at least — the biggest source of whisky is the novelisations, ostensibly intended for kids.
Article will be changed to reflect the proper British spelling, but no effort will be made to correct linkages throughout the wiki. It would be tedious in the extreme to figure out whether a link was made properly according to the story being sourced.
- Shambala108
We do have one story that uses "whiskey" in the title, Whiskey and Water, which is set in America. Hopefully no one takes it upon themselves to "correct" the title on the whisky page or the pages related to the story.
- CzechOut
Story titles are move locked. And I've just create locked Whisky and Water. Autosuggestion should make it fairly apparent what the proper title is after someone enters "whisk".
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Spelling debates/Thread:187221
- DENCH-and-PALMER
How was it written in the script/book?
- Amorkuz
But this is a common game that can be mentioned in many stories. I am honestly surprised it is only present in one so far. And it should be linked to the same page. What if different stories differ?
- SOTO
I was always under the impression that "checkers" is just the North American name for the game, with draughts being the proper UK term, all in all. So when you're saying checkers and not draughts, you're using an American term. Does British spelling apply to American terms? This is an interesting case.
- SOTO
In any case "chequers" the game isn't really a thing. Draughts is, and checkers is another name for that. The source you give proves that chequer is the proper spelling in place of checker (distinct from checkers), chequered in place of checkered, etc. So if we're talking about a chequered flag or chequered trousers, it's QU. I do not contest this. You will not, however, find a precedent anywhere in the DWU for a game called "chequers", because you won't even find a precedent in the real world for that.
- SOTO
Okay, I stand corrected by a footnote on Wikipedia's draughts page: "When this word is used in the UK, it is usually spelt chequers (as in Chinese chequers)". This would not be used very commonly, of course, because it's an American term with British spelling, but we do follow British English here. I'd still like to see what DWU sources use for spelling, though. We do make exceptions from time to time.
- SOTO
I was wondering about the implications for MOS pages such as T:SPELL CHECK, where the term "spell-checker", perhaps ironically, is used almost ad nauseam. But then, of course, I realised that the verb "to check" is still CK in both standards, and so a noun form that would derive from that, such as "checker" would not be spelled any differently.
This adds some complexity to this discussion, though: even if we do rule that chequer is the only correct spelling for the pattern and the game, and it's chequerboard, not checkerboard, etc, we have to acknowledge that even in pure British English, "checker" would remain the correct spelling when the meaning is "one who checks".
And which spelling would the word get if the term baggage checker or supermarket checker came up? That is a predominantly North American expression (not around my city, though, which sadly doesn't have a page), just like using checkers for draughts. But chequer or checker? Would that go under "one who checks", perhaps?
EDIT: "Supermarket checker" does actually pop up on the wiki, at Brenda, and CK spelling is used there.
- Amorkuz
I also stand corrected, but on a separate issue. I checked whether checkers or chequers are present anywhere in the Wikia, but it never crossed my mind to check whether draughts are. Thanks for making a redirect from chequers to draughts.
- SOTO
PROSE: Revolution Man: "The Doctor was still in the sitting room. The TV was on again, and a small child in a bright-red jumper was playing a board game with the Doctor. Garish yellow card, tokens in several colours. The legend CHINESE CHEQUERS ran in red, burning letters across the centre of the board."
- Amorkuz
Touché.
Now regarding the various uses of the root check. I took a brief look in the Oxford dictionary and it is as usual: two main meanings with 12 and 6 submeanings. If we try to detail them all here, it will not be very useful. Perhaps, the simplest solution is to rename this thread to checkers vs. chequers (board game). This will both restrict the applicability of this thread and alert onlookers of possible complications for other similar words.
Having said this, I think this thread has a direct applicability to the chequered pattern of alternating squares.
The main other non-ck word is, I believe, "cheque" as a means of payment (see Cheques, Lies and Videotape). In AE it is of course "check." This might have implications for things like chequing account etc. And this (check) seems worth checking out (pun unintended). I just bumped into Reality Cheque (comic story), where British spelling is used in the title but American one is (maybe) present in text. I do not feel comfortable changing it without access to the comic strip because it still can be a clever word play from the authors.
If anyone can remember another meaning that warrants the "qu" spelling, it can be added here or made into a separate thread. Actually, if this thread is restricted to the board game/pattern, it might make sense to make a separate thread for cheque vs. check (I checked that it is not on the cheat sheet).
- Amorkuz
Bad news from AdricLovesNyssa: it is "checkers" in the script of The Silver Turk. So now we have two opposing spelling from in-universe sources: checkers in AUDIO: The Silver Turk and chequers in PROSE: Revolution Man.
- SOTO
I didn't realise there was any doubt that cheque is the British English spelling, and thus the right one. Obviously, if the "check" spelling was used in the title of an in-universe book or of a story, etc, we wouldn't alter the names of those articles, but in-text, cheque should always be used.
AdricLovesNyssa has informed me that, in fact, the spelling "check" is used in The Silver Turk's official script, and that story is so far the only one we've discovered that calls draughts "checkers/chequers" at all.
- SOTO
Theeeeeeeeere we go. Forums working again. :)
Okay, in response, chequers is actually only given in Revolution Man as the spelling for Chinese chequers, technically. So chequers is certainly a valid spelling within the DWU, but at the moment, it seems like checkers is the predominant spelling for the variant name of draughts? This is not to say, of course, that we can't decide that "chequers" is simply the correct British English spelling, and that this trumps actual spelling in the script. I'd love to find more examples in the DWU of this word, though, and the two spellings.
- SOTO
What I've found so far:
- Obviously for the most part, draughts being used as the principal name for that game: draughts
- As cited above, "chequers" is the correct British spelling of the word, when used: chequers
- The script to The Silver Turk uses "checkers" spelling: checkers
- Support for "chequered"— chequered
- "chequered dish-towel" x2 (PROSE: Nightdreamers)
- "red-chequered stockings on their brawny legs" (PROSE: World Game)
- "a grid of small pyramid-shaped keys arranged in a complex chequer-board pattern" (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Sontaran Experiment)
- "... was patterned with a multi-coloured chequer-board of tiny coded panels ... leaned against the chequered section of wall ..." (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Ark in Space)
- "the broad hall with its pattern of chequered tiles ... [the Daleks] failed to see anything unusual in the red and white chequered pattern on the floor of the hall" (PROSE: Death to the Daleks novelisation)
- "trying hard to keep up with the Doctor's erratic steps across the huge chequered floor" (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Ribos Operation)
- "'The Captain was referring, rather unkindly, to what some consider my somewhat chequered career' ... 'You said earlier that your career could be seen as somewhat – chequered, I think was the word?'" (PROSE: World Game)
- Support for "checkered"— checkered
- "checkered Rupert scarf" (PROSE: Time and Relative)
- "flamboyant checkered cloak" (PROSE: The Five Doctors)
- "long checkered sock" (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Tomb of the Cybermen)
- "checkered sports jacket" (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Android Invasion; on first glance, source uses American honourifics)
- Chinese chequers (spelling from Revolution Man: chequers
- How to Play Four-dimensional Chinese Checkers, and Win (short story): checkers
- "the crest of the Cyrrhenic Imperial Exchequer" (Doctor Who and the Ribos Operation: exchequer
- In PROSE: Millennium Shock, "Chequers" is apprently the name of the Prime Minster Terry Brooks' private residence: Chequers
- Doctor Moon is described as a "virus checker" (cannot confirm spelling, but don't really need to): in-universe example of "checker" being used in a different sense, which would make no sense as chequer and absolutely should not be replaced.
- Hence, if we do decide chequer is the correct spelling, this cannot be maintained by bot, at least not without a lot of manual filtering. There will be exceptions where the spelling absolutely should be checker, certainly.
- Amorkuz
Now I see what you meant earlier: you were bot-proofing. Then I completely agree: this one seems completely bot-proof. (To your list above I might add that the Eleventh Doctor's various pieces of clothing is described as checkered several times on the page.
The options seem to be as follows: 1) Follow the in-universe sources. 2) Use chequers and chequered everywhere outside the titles. 3) Use chequers and chequered by default, unless there is an in-universe source with the alternative spelling. (please add others if I'm missing some)
From my point of view, 1) is problematic: firstly, it means that people without scripts for audios are prohibited from making edits. And I don't think scripts are available to the public for all the audios; secondly, another problematic situation is when there is an object with a distinctive chequered pattern (clothes, etc.) but it is never named in the story explicitly.
Both 2) and 3) are workable I believe. My preference is for 2). As precedent, I would cite the absence of periods after Dr despite the use of "Dr. Who" in the credits (see Tardis:Honourifics). From my point of view, chequers are an object from the real world that is not reimagined in DWU in any substantial way. Hence, there is no reason to afford it a special courtesy of adaptive spelling.
- SOTO
(I noticed the use of checkered on Eleventh Doctor too, but decided I'd only list valid sources; but yes, that is an example of use using that word, and in this case, using American spelling.)
The difference between 2) and 3) is that for 3 we make exceptions if American spelling is used for that source, right? I actually agree with you on this one: chequer should be the correct spelling, outside of titles and names of things.
If there's a character called the "Checkered Prince", we do not correct that. If there's an audio story with the word "Checkers" in it, we do not correct that. And obviously, if we're quoting we do not correct spelling there either. But if we're discussing the Doctor's chequered trousers, chequered is the correct British spelling, and thus, I think, (should be) the correct one. So we can acknowledge both spellings—chequers and checkers—in the lead of draughts, but then use the British spelling throughout the article, regardless of story.
Checkers should remain as a redirect (checkers, chinese checkers, because there is precedent for that spelling in the DWU. But it does not seem to even be the predominant spelling. (I wish I had my whole book collection with me, and wasn't limited to mostly novelisations for that list; I apologise.)
Especially, as you said, for those who could not possibly tell what spelling is officially used in a story—based on an audio story, or television story, without access to an official script—we need to decide on which to use. If we agreed on an option where it was entirely case-by-case, we'd constantly be arguing about each case of the word and asking for direct quotes to ensure we're using the right one.
This is my input. You seem to agree. Any further comments? Objections from anyone else?
- SOTO
Oh! So we'll be using chequered as the correct spelling, but this will not likely be bot-enforced. It will not be added SpellBot. "Checkers" and "checkered" are used in valid sources, are in story titles and potentially other titles, and as we said, "checker" can mean something totally different to the game and/or pattern, as at Brenda, which should not be corrected to "supermarket chequer" (though should probably be changed to "cashier", because checker in that sense is a US expression).
When this discussion concludes, if there is no objection, I will add this to T:SPELL DISCUSS. I'll invite you to look at the discussions linked there, and Tardis:What_SpellBot_actually_corrects#Problem_words, if you want to get a sense of how we've decided on these things before, and what the considerations are.
- SOTO
I just discovered a sentence at English language specifically mentioning "chequerboard" as the UK spelling and "checkerboard" as the US, within the DWU. As in, a story within the DWU actually brought this up, and specifically stated that "chequerboard" is the UK spelling. I really think, at this point, we can't deny that "chequers", "chequerboard" and "chequered" should at least be the preferred spelling if not the required one, per T:BRENG. SpellBot will be able to replace "checkerboard" and "checkered", but not "checkers" because that could feasibly be the plural of "checker", which can, sometimes, mean something else.
- Amorkuz
Unbelievable. It remains to ask one of the writers to include the discussion of chequers/checkers into their next novel, and we are completely bulletproof.
On a more serious note, if I understand correctly, an in-universe source on the spelling in general beats the script of any particular audio: for audios, the words themselves are in-universe but their spelling is not, right? More precisely, if there is a doubt as to which word was pronounced (say, because Briggs went overboard with distorting for his newest Dalek persona), then the script is definitive. But if the same word could have different variant spellings, then the spelling rules of DWU should trump the spelling in the script.
- SOTO
Well what we're talking about here is British English. Sometimes we decide to make an exception, and use whatever the official text says. In the case of audio scripts, they are generally definitive in terms of spelling (particularly if we're talking about dialogue), because that is the official text version of the audio story. It's not strictly in-universe, though, so obviously if there's any contradictions, what's said in the audio takes precedent.
But if an audio script calls Gallifrey "Galifrey", fuck that. I would say, when it comes to discussions about spelling, audio scripts, which are technically a production source, not the story release itself, should come secondary to any stories explicitly released with text, like prose or comics, or words seen on TV. When it comes down to it, it is a script, not a valid prose release in its own right.
The decision here comes to: do we make exceptions and allow "checkers" when used within an official text output, or do we enforce (or suggest) the proper UK spelling of "chequers"? If the latter, regardless of what is used in the text, "chequers/chequered/chequerboard" will reign supreme.
In this case, a DWU source actually tells us that chequerboard is UK and checkerboard is US. So while we can mention "checkerboard" as the US spelling on the page, T:BRENG tells us to go with the UK spelling. I don't think that would be at all controversial.
- Mary hated her job. She was a faceless, soulless checker at Whatever Industries.
It's also used in The Doctor Trap, for instance, to indicate an object that is a "DNA checker".
We also have to think about the implications of it having distinct meanings as a plural, common noun vs. a plural, proper noun. That is, chequers is not Chequers. And both are within DWU fiction (even though no one has yet written an article about Chequers, yet).
So since there is some precedent for both spellings being used for the game, and since SOTO has already pointed out that it would be tedious to maintain by bot, I think we should probably just not enforce correction of the -que- variant, but instead strongly suggest its usage when referring to:
- patterns
- the game pieces used in the game of draughts
but have no real official stance on it as the alternate name of the game of draughts, or Chinese checkers.
Ultimately, I think I have to point to the fact that neither OS X's native spell checker (which is currently set to UK English) or Grammerly (also set to UK English) are red-flagging either spelling in any context. So I think it'd be really hard to ask our American editors to remember to use -que- in the senses that this thread has mostly discussed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Spelling debates/Thread:204035
Ok, we have two pages for the same thing from Four to Doomsday: Monopticon and Monoptican. One of them has to be right, but which one?
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY XXXXXX User:SOTO/Forum Test/Spelling debates/Thread:205226
Our article for the role of scientific adviser currently sits at scientific advisor. What I understand from multiple online sources is that while both are technically correct in British English, "adviser" is greatly preferred in British English, and "advisor" is preferred in American.
While I'm currently undecided on whether this should be added to SpellBot and enforced, leaning towards a yes, I am certain that any in-universe article including the word should be renamed.
Scientific advisor should be scientific adviser, as the "more British" spelling. At least The Scales of Injustice and Who Killed Kennedy use this spelling. There's a short story which is called Scientific Adviser. One short story, Second Chances, spells it "scientific advisor", so there is some in-universe precedent for the current spelling.
What we also need to consider, though, is science advisor. I'm not certain where we got that spelling from, and though I'm sure it's used in Miracle Day credits, that is an American production.
- Here's one discussion on the difference between the two spellings
- Oxford's note here: "The spellings adviser and advisor are both correct. Adviser is more common, but advisor is also widely used, especially in North America. Adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position"
- Shambala108
"A minor short story"? Don't forget Tardis:Neutral point of view.
- DENCH-and-PALMER
Shambala108 wrote: "A minor short story"? Don't forget Tardis:Neutral point of view.
When he says minor short story, I think he means a minor reference.
- SOTO
Okay, I retract minor. I didn't mean to imply anything about its significance, only that it stands alone in the minority (as far as I can tell).
- SOTO
Any thoughts?
- Legacy of the Daleks (but see below)
- Endgame
- Trading Futures
- The Domino Effect
- The Last Resort
- To the Slaughter
... but adviser is present in
- The Eight Doctors
- Vampire Science
- Genocide
- Option Lock (where it's used a lot)
- Legacy of the Daleks (but see above)
- Dreamstone Moon
- Seeing I
- Placebo Effect
- The Janus Conjunction
- Dominion
- Demontage
- Interference - Book One
- Interference - Book Two
- The Taking of Planet 5
- Frontier Worlds
- The Shadows of Avalon
- The Space Age
- The Ancestor Cell
- Escape Velocity
- Eater of Wasps
- The Slow Empire
- Dark Progeny
- Grimm Reality
- Mad Dogs and Englishmen
- Trading Futures
- Sometime Never...
- The Gallifrey Chronicles
So from this simple survey of one range, we can see that both are used but the more common spelling was adviser.
There's ambiguity in more recent, BBC Wales era novels too, with adivsor being in
-- whereas adviser is in a lot more.
So, with things like the K9/K-9 debate, we'd generally go with what's more common. But spelling debates can be more nuanced.
And, truth is, the Oxford English Dictionary has no problem with either. It says they're both correct, but adviser is more common. So there's no cause, in my view, to have the bot correct to adviser.
The OED also indicates that adviser may be less formal, while advisor often indicates an official position. I'm not sure that's entirely supported in the little survey I just did, but there were definitely cases of "scientific adviser" and "scientific advisor" -- by far the most prominent use of the word in DWU fiction.
So I think this is a case where we can just leave things as they are and not feel too badly about it. Remember, we have a redirect at scientific adviser too.
If there's any question left over, it's not really a spelling debate so much as a story titling one. The redirect at the capped version -- Scientific Adviser -- goes to the short story, and it arguably shouldn't. It should go, instead, to the lower-cased page, as it would probably be more commonly used as a title (as in position) than as a reference to an obscure short story. Again, though: not really a spelling debate, so I'm going to close this one as officially no change needed.
Category:SOTO archive threads YYYYYY Warning: Display title "User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Spelling debates" overrides earlier display title "Spelling debates/Adviser or advisor?".
