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)

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)

Bitcoin as a technology is entirely irrelevant for this article, while the Oxford spelling system in turn is in no way tied to Bitcoin. 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)