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)