Talk:William Hickey (columnist)

A discussion

Copied from User talk:Ghmyrtle#William Hickey (columnist)

I strongly believe that the comma should be omiited in the sentence that contains "published in the British daily newspaper, the Daily Express." This implies that there is only one British daily newspaper and it is called the Daily Express, which is incorrect as there is more than one British daily newspaper. It isn't an apposite phrase, since "British daily newspaper" describes "the Daily Express", it isn't a substitute for it; if you were to remove "the Daily Express" (as if it were a sub-clause), it would make no sense. This could be seen as misleading, so my change should be reverted to: "published in the British daily newspaper the Daily Express." or perhaps slightly tidier would be "published in the British daily newspaper Daily Express." Alexetc (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now changed the wording so that the issue doesn't arise. It really is a style issue - the previous wording is perfectly normal in British English. I "strongly believe" that you should read WP:COMMA before labelling your edits as "corrections". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I read WP:COMMA but I don't see anything that relates to this specific issue. I agree completely with you that the previous wording is perfectly normal. I disagree, though, that this is a style issue and the wording needs to be changed to avoid the issue. The use of a comma here is incorrect, as it is modifying the meaning of the sentence in a way that isn't intended. Your new wording, while correct, has lost the normal phrasing of such a sentence, which is a shame as it needn't be changed. I would move to return to the revision following my edit, which keeps the original phrasing and corrects the punctuation (or lack of it). Alexetc (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are in error, both in suggesting that the wording you changed was incorrect - it wasn't - and in suggesting that my last edit changed the meaning in a way that was unintended - it didn't. Ghmyrtle (talk)

I wasn't suggesting the original wording is incorrect - it absolutely is correct - but that the comma is incorrect, because the wording is not an apposite phrase or stating that the Daily Express is the (single) British daily newspaper. In the spirit of consensus, there are literally hundreds of uses on WP of the phrase "the British newspaper the Daily Express" or similar. Please see Alan Rusbridger: "Alan Charles Rusbridger (born 29 December 1953) is the editor of the British newspaper The Guardian, taking up the post in 1995." Alexetc (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My use of "wording" should be taken to include the use of the comma. It is incorrect of you to state that its inclusion was incorrect. It is a matter of style, and British English style is to include it. That Rusbridger sentence is poorly worded for other reasons as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I used the Guardian example as one of many such examples; your petulant attitude towards it suggests you're either unwilling or unable to engage with the isue at stake here. You have not so far provided any material argument as to why the comma is correct. Please see WP:CONSENSUS‎ - "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)"; it is not enough to simply reference a page with no justification drawn from it. The use of a comma is not as you have suggested a matter of style covered by WP:COMMA or national varieties of English by WP:BRITENG, as this specific wording does not require a comma in the first place; it is simply incorrect to use it and therefore those style guidelines are irrelevant here. I have explained this at length and with rigour.

This really is rudimentary English - you don't put a comma between an adjective and noun (or adjective-phrase and noun-phrase in this case). To explain again, however, "the British daily newspaper" is an appositive phrase, acting like an adjective in describing the noun-phrase "the Daily Express"; see Apposition and the example "my friend Alice", whose syntax is identical to the original wording here - "restrictive appositives are not set off by commas". The phrase "the Daily Express" is not a sub-clause, which could be removed and the meaning retained; you could not write the original sentence as ""William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the British daily newspaper.". Newspaper titles are afforded no special treatment with regards to the use of commas before them when being described, any more than "my friend Alice", "the colour blue" etc do.

As I have said, there are literally hundreds of WP pages about newspapers alone with identical syntax that back my argument. To demonstrate this, if you run an internet search for site:en.wikipedia.org +"the british newspaper the", you will find that 90% of results do not use a comma (the remaining 10% being incorrect). See two of many further examples of an identical sentence structure: "Vizetelly had been a war correspondent for the British newspaper The Daily News" The Cyprus Times; "Ronald "Carl" Giles [...] was a cartoonist best known for his work for the British newspaper the Daily Express" Carl Giles. The vast weight of evidence - not my word but WP at large - cannot be refuted; again, please see WP:CONSENSUS‎ - "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.".

My original edit stands and I shall revert to it in line with WP's consensus, which by no accident reflects proper English usage. Alexetc (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See Linguistic prescription#Problems. As I have said, I am happy to find a form of words that overcomes this issue. Reverting to your wording fails to address the issue of what is, at best, a very infelicitous form of words. Please try to improve the article, rather than insisting on an unnecessarily poor wording just because it's "your" wording. And please don't accuse me of petulance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't keep referring me to articles that are immaterial to the case in hand and without citing specific passages as evidence of your argument.

The original sentence doesn't call for "a form of words that overcomes this issue", otherwise you are denying English language (grammar, syntax, punctuation) all of its use and power. Commas follow rules - like any other part of the English language, their use can be explained - and exist for a reason - such as to introduce parenthetical phrases. The phrase "the Daily Express" is not parenthetical, however, it is the noun-phrase where "the British newspaper" is not. The original wording is, in your own words, "perfectly normal in British English"; I would in fact go as far as to say your suggested new wording does not take the form as seen elsewhere on WP, setting a precedent that would need wider discussion, as it places undue emphasis on "a British newspaper" rather than "the Daily Express" and is not the normal phrasing used on WP.

Your issue with retaining the comma in this context - which you haven't ever explained, so I will have to resort to assumption - I take it hangs on the "the" in "the Daily Express" seeming a little untidy within the wording of the sentence. Nonetheless, this cannot call for an exception to the proper use of a comma. As seen throughout WP pages about publications, album titles, names of boats or any other proper name that begins with "The", no comma is used when the sentence structure is identical. See an example with no "the" in the title: "He blogged about his experience shooting the video before it came out, which led to Jack White insulting him in an interview with the British magazine NME." - The Denial Twist‎. I could go on quoting examples from WP but I should hope by now that the consensus on usage is clear.

You're mistaking this sentence with the comma usage required in the following sentence: "The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces (CINC) is a position vested in the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II" - Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. The phrase "currently Queen Elizabeth II" is non-restrictive appositive phrase and a parenthetical clause, which could be removed without affecting the meaning; the sentence could be written "The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces (CINC) is a position vested in the British monarch" and its meaning still stands.

If this sentence was changed to ""William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the Daily Express", it would still be correct and retain its meaning. This is because "the British newspaper" describes "the Daily Express" and is of parenthetical importance to the overall meaning of the sentence. If this comma is correct, then you are suggesting that the sentence can be changed to ""William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the British daily newspaper." and it would retain the meaning required, which it does not.

This, again, is not a matter of "style", as in personal preference or regional variation, it is plain wrong. If you do not explain what your issue is, there can be no argument in the face of proper use of punctuation and the consensus from WP. Please do not tell me once again that I'm wrong without full explanation or pointing to the specific usage from the style guide that you feel justifies your argument, otherwise you are merely handwaving. See WP:Edit warring and the first paragraph: it is not enough to revert to the original version without explanation and to simply say "but my edits were right". I have given you a full explanation of why this is incorrect; you owe me the same courtesy. Alexetc (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've given up trying to tell you that you're wrong, though I believe you are. What I am now trying to do is to come up with a wording that is better and clearer than the wording you have proposed. Are you seriously suggesting that the wording that you are proposing is the best possible wording for that sentence? If so, I despair. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well you clearly believe you're right, but unlike me, it s no use simply believing you're right without being able to show it. That's the foundation of any argument. You haven't used a single phrase from English grammar that supports your argument. You haven't shown me an exaplanation or single example of correct use that supports this usage. So what you're saying you believe is, against all English teaching, that a comma should go between an adjective and the noun it describes? Alexetc (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've no interest in that argument. We are all (I assume) here to improve the encyclopedia, rather than debate grammatical niceties with each other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have no interest in the argument, then why are you (albeit with not a single shred of evidence) debating it? The use of a comma between an adjective and noun is the argument. To call a comma a "grammatical nicety" is to totally rob it of its use and show you have no respect for its correct use. Commas are as important as any other area of grammar - they have a use, there are rules for their use, and this should be preserved. I am indeed here to improve this page, not with a content edit or addition but with a correction to punctuation. This is just as important as any other type of edit, otherwise WP could be littered with punctuation errors, nothing would make any sense and no-one would care. Alexetc (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I wrote wording A, which was in place for over two years without any comment. You changed it, as is your right, to wording B, describing my use of a comma as "incorrect". I disagreed, and we started this discussion. Plainly, I am as unlikely to convince you that wording A is preferable as you are to convince me that wording B is preferable (or "correct"). So, in the hope of avoiding further argument, I came up with wording C - on which, so far, you have failed to make any comment other than to remove the word "daily", with which I have concurred. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed! I know I've written rather a lot but you are incorrect to say "you have failed to make any comment", as I did indeed comment on Wording C: viz. "I would in fact go as far as to say your suggested new wording does not take the form as seen elsewhere on WP, setting a precedent that would need wider discussion, as it places undue emphasis on "a British newspaper" rather than "the Daily Express" and is not the normal phrasing used on WP." I see, indeed, that you've gone over to Alan Rusbridger, following my highlighting of it as an example of correct non-use of a comma, and changed the wording there, based on this discussion, which I find as funny as I do incredible; we can deal with that at a later time, however.

Again, this is not a case of being "preferable", otherwise you are misunderstanding the role a comma plays in this context; it isn't there to be dropped in if you personally feel like it. This is not a "preference" in the same way that one cannot argue for the "preference" in writing the sentence "I painted it in the colour, blue"; it is simply wrong. Wording A minus the comma is the only way to phrase this sentence in proper English and proper WP use. I am baffled by the fact that I assume you continue to think that you will convince me when you have not put forward a single piece of evidence. I will ask you again for your first piece of evidence that the original wording's comma use is correct. Alexetc (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not discussing the original wording A. It is history. Please discuss wording C. As the person responsible for writing the original article, I assure you that I am comfortable with any change in emphasis that you think it gives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on William Hickey (columnist) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion, so far as I can recall. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Though I would, personally, have probably inserted a comma here had I written this sentence, I would have — now I've done some research on the matter — been incorrect. There should be no comma. It's a question of necessity of the phrase which would, were the comma needed, go after the comma. If that phrase is necessary to make the term to which it refers unambiguous, then no comma is used; if it merely adds information, then the comma is used. In this case, the preceding phrase, whether it is "British daily newspaper" or "Daily Express" is ambiguous without the following qualifier: There are more than one British newspaper and there are more than one newspaper in the world named Daily Express. The following phrase is necessary to say which British newspaper or which newspaper named Daily Express, thus no comma.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That misses the point - as I have said, we are not discussing that wording. Any discussion should be on the new wording. I'm moving this discussion to the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It directly addresses wording C, at least insofar as the inclusion or exclusion of the comma is concerned. It also addresses A, but you may not consider that to be either here or there at this point. How then does it miss the point? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how you think it addresses the current wording of the article (as at 21:18, 5 June 2013). Are you (is anyone?) seriously suggesting that the opening sentence should read: "William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the Daily Express a British newspaper. - with no comma??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

While my opinion was only to address the comma issue, since you ask, I have to say I think that construction is okay. It seems awkward on first blush, but I think that it's only because we're so used to seeing that comma used incorrectly. I actually have a bigger problem with the presence of the combination of the term byline and the quotation marks. If WH is a byline then the quotation marks are unneeded and are inappropriate as scare quotes, the use of which is prohibited (somewhere) in MoS. If WH is a title, which I think it arguably really is, then the quotes are appropriate around it to designate it as such, but the reference to byline should be removed. That would reduce the awkwardness as well by reducing the length of the sentence: "'William Hickey' is a gossip column published in the Daily Express a British newspaper. ... The column was first established under that pseudonym by Tom Driberg in 1928." Would "in the daily British Daily Express newspaper" perhaps be better, however, in either version? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No objection to removing the word "byline" (though personally I think it's clear what it means). But as for "...a gossip column published in the Daily Express a British newspaper..." .... frankly, words fail me. It is such obviously bad English grammar that I find it inconceivable that anyone can seriously suggest it. Thanks for your comments, but I'd rather stick with Alexetc's (current) version, clunky and poor though that is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's still watching: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#An_unpoked_pig. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just had a couple of editing conflicts on this page, so my response here may be a step or two behind. To address that, Ghmyrtle is absolutely right that "...a gossip column published in the Daily Express a British newspaper" is incorrect as there should (!) be a comma in there. (That pretty much backs my argument that Wording A shouldn't, in fact.) I would be a little surprised if that was what TransporterMan meant, but I'll leave him to confirm either way on that. I agree that Wording B may seem a little "clunky" (two "the"s in close succession) but it's certainly not "poor", and no reason to abandon the rule that a comma does not go between a common name and a proper name.

My original post was: The thread should not be hijacked into a discussion of Wording C, as that was not what TransporterMan was asked to comment on. You said, "Any discussion should be on the new wording", but it absolutely should not; this entire discussion has been about the original wording and whether to use a comma, ie. Wording A vs Wording B, not the straw man of Wording C. As TransporterMan rightly says, "my opinion was only to address the comma issue" in Wording A.

As it happens, I don't fully agree with TransporterMan either, with regard to Wording C - he should follow his initial instincts in sensing that "It seems awkward on first blush" (and "in the daily British Daily Express newspaper" could not be used as it is certainly not correct phrasing) - as Wording C has no WP:CONSENSUS on how such sentences are normally phrased on the majority of pages and should not be used. Anyway, it is immaterial as that wording was not chosen to be used.

You asked, "Are you (is anyone?) seriously suggesting that the opening sentence should read [suggested wording] - with no comma??!!" with regard to a sentence structure no-one has suggested. But in arguing it is a matter of being correct or incorrect, you defeat your (limited) argument that using a comma is a matter of style. (It is ironic, if not faintly absurd, to now try to engage in a discussion of whether using a comma is correct, not to mention churlish to demand an answer considering that when I suggested an incorrect sentence based on the inference from the original wording, you made absolutely no comment on it.) Further, you say, "I don't understand how you think it addresses the current wording", when a decision on whether to use a comma in any given sentence is at the heart of the entire discussion and TransporterMan's decision!

Nonetheless, as I say, a discussion around Wording C is immaterial to this discussion. A discussion of Wording A vs. B is what I opened the Talk section on, that is what we've been discussing, that is what I put to the 3O page to discuss, that is what TransporterMan's decision addresses. Wording B follows WP:CONSENSUS for normal phrasing. Although you have succeeded in drawing him on Wording C, TransporterMan's initial decision was to use Wording B, with the original phrasing and no comma, and that should stand. Alexetc (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like Alice in Wonderland. The only reason for you to get a third opinion was to prove a point to me, that the comma was necessary. It was not to improve the article wording - because by that time I had already changed the wording to "wording C", in order, as I thought, to curtail the discussion. I entirely agree with you that TransporterMan was not asked to comment on "wording C", but he did so. We now have your wording ("A") ("B"): "William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the British newspaper the Daily Express. The alternative is my wording ("C"): "William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the Daily Express, a British newspaper. If, when you came to this article, you saw wording C in place, would you have sought to change it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Some housekeeping first: you have unfortunately been significantly incosistent on two counts in your last post. First, I'm afraid you've got confused about the wording naming convention that you yourself introduced. You have just said, "We now have your wording ("A"): "William Hickey" is the pseudonymous byline of a gossip column published in the British newspaper the Daily Express.", but this is incorrect; Wording A is your original wording; Wording B is my edit; wording C is indeed your alternative wording. I have kept to this convention at all times during the discussion. I don't know at what point you got confused and started using the wrong "Wording" naming, but I can only think that this has led to misunderstanding with yourself and others.

Second, and more damning, you just said, "I entirely agree with you that TransporterMan was not asked to comment on "wording C", but he did so.", but you did, and in the post immediately prior to TransporterMan's decision: you said, "I am not discussing the original wording A. It is history. Please discuss wording C." You have shot yourself in the foot with that one. I think that both of these facts mean that you have poisoned the well with regards to TransporterMan's discussion following his initial correct decision on the use of a comma, sabotaging the process and leading to him withdrawing. I will contact him to discuss this inconsistency and the next steps available to him.

But to business. To reiterate, this is a matter of checking the implicit WP:CONSENSUS‎ and the overwhelming majority (~90%) of examples on Wikipedia show there is no comma as in Wording A, and supplemental information is not set off in apposition as in Wording C. As I said earlier, "I would in fact go as far as to say your suggested new wording [Wording C] does not take the form as seen elsewhere on WP, setting a precedent that would need wider discussion, as it places undue emphasis on "a British newspaper" rather than "the Daily Express" and is not the normal phrasing used on WP.".

Anyway, this is all moot, as happily I've finally found the exact evidence required; please see Wikibooks:United common and proper name: "When a common and a proper name are closely united, the comma is not inserted: as, "The brook Kidron,", "The river Don,", "The empress Catharine,"". Also, please see The New York Times: The Most Comma Mistakes: "I went to see the movie, “Midnight in Paris” with my friend, Jessie." Comma after “movie,” comma after “friend” and, sometimes, comma after “Paris” as well. None are correct — unless “Midnight in Paris” is the only movie in the world and Jessie is the writer’s only friend. Otherwise, the punctuation should be: "I went to see the movie “Midnight in Paris” with my friend Jessie.""

The sheer weight of evidence, explanation, examples, Wikipedia consensus and finally these two articles show that Wording ("A") ("B") is correct. You have not offered a shred of evidence, only the ipse dixit argument "You are in error [...] in suggesting that the wording you changed was incorrect - it wasn't". Wording B stands. Alexetc (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Two points first. You are correct that in my last post I referred to wording A when I meant wording B - my error, for which I apologise. Regarding TransporterMan's involvement - it was your request for a third opinion at 15:49, 5 June 2013, that specifically asked for a view on "the need for a comma" in wordings A and B - despite the fact that at that time (since this edit at 11:12, 5 June 2013) wording A was no longer on the table for discussion as I had already changed my preferred wording to wording C. I have not "shot myself in the foot" or "poisoned the well" in any sense - perhaps you should consider why you asked for an opinion on two wordings, one of which was not at that point being supported by either of us? Hence my argument that the only reason I could see for you to seek a third opinion was to win a debating point over me, rather than in seeking to improve the article. I asked TransporterMan to comment on wording C because, although he claimed to have considered it, I could not see that he had done so (or, if he had, I was incredulous over his view of it). I must repeat to you, yet again, that I now have no interest in wording A, or on whether it is better or worse than wording B, or "correct" or "incorrect". As I said before, that is history. All that matters now is whether wording B (your wording) is better or worse than wording C (my wording). You have still not properly addressed that question. And I think you'll find you have confused yourself in your last paragraph, where you suggest that "Wording A is correct". I don't think you mean that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have said on WP:Reference_desk/Language#An_unpoked_pig: Thank you for your clarification and correction of your confusion over Wording A and B. It seems I have done the same in my last post, so I in turn also apologise and have corrected it. I also apologise for the use of the word adjudication, it is indeed an opinion (more on that over at the RD so I won't drag it over to here).

First, let's consider the move to Wording C in the first place. You have just said, "perhaps you should consider why you asked for an opinion on two wordings, one of which was not at that point being supported by either of us". As you will see on WP:Third_opinion&diff=558461758&oldid=558232677, I asked for 3O in a neutral manner, as that page dictates, and it is up to the reviewer to head to Talk:William Hickey (columnist)#A discussion to review the discussion and make an opinion. I did not "ask", either on the 3O page or the Talk page, for an opinion on Wording C, only A vs B, with my argument against Wording A and Wording C very evident on the Talk page.

It was, I would suggest, poor form to change to Wording C in the middle of the discussion of Wording A vs Wording B; if I don't get to have Wording B while in the middle of its due discussion, you by implication do not get to have Wording C. It's one thing to make an edit, another to make an edit on an issue that is currently under discussion; that could be argued to be WP:Vandalism or WP:Edit warring, but for now I will steer wide of that and simply call it poor form as I say. Please read WP:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing and WP:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion in full, though.

But let's move on to the discussion at hand. I will now explain why Wording B is preferable to Wording C by far, by explaining first why Wording B does not require re-phrasing to begin with, then why Wording C is not the normal phrasing. Wording B is by far the more preferred phrasing simply because it is perfectly normal phrasing: "my friend Alice", "the British magazine NME", "the British car manufacturer Austin Motor Company", "the 1950 children's fantasy novel The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". Their use in this context does not use a comma as previously explained. It may be a little "clunky" in Wording B (my emphasis as I personally would argue it's very slight and I for one have no real difficulty saying Wording B), but it's not an issue in comparison to the alternative, which is to make an exception of proper names that begin with "The" and thereby sacrifice consensus.

So, our good friend consensus. Run a Google search; I haven't so far found any examples where Wording C is used in such a scenario over Wording B. Please see two examples, with near identical wording from opening sentences on two very different article pages: "Ronald "Carl" Giles [...] was a cartoonist best known for his work for the British newspaper the Daily Express" Carl Giles; "The TVR Typhon was a sports car designed and built by the British car manufacturer TVR in their former factory in Blackpool." TVR Typhon. Note: as with all other examples, it is not phrased "by TVR, the British car manufacturer, in...". I won't continue to quote examples that support Wording B, but please provide any that support Wording C.

Third, I will explain why I believe Wording C is not the consensus. The use of a article page is to describe/explain/detail the subject matter at hand. It is not a forum to explain every term, or every single word, on that page, otherwise by extension every word would have to be explained; the implication is that the reader has some awareness of the terms with which the subject is being discussed (and hyperlinks provide links to other pages that may be required in the course of understanding). This is particularly true in the opening sentence, where the subject is described in summary. As I have said, Wording C "places undue emphasis on "a British newspaper" rather than "the Daily Express"", becasue it is set off in a parenthetical clause. The fact that William Hickey appears in the Daily Express is of more importance than that the Daily Express is a British newspaper.

One final point: you yourself never wrote it in the phrasing of Wording C in the first place. You said, "I wrote wording A, which was in place for over two years without any comment." No-one, neither you in writing it nor any other reader, thought that it should have been re-phrased as Wording C. I came along two years later, saw that the phrasing was right given the context and meaning but the punctuation was incorrect (as has now been agreed), and changed it. I don't see how that is anything but damning to your case, though I will, as ever, be intrigued to see how you respond to that.

I'm surprised that anyone would be fooled by your Argument from ignorance - nit-picking minor areas of my argument (eg. pointing out my immaterial spelling mistake "me" not "my") while having not provided a material argument of your own (you now say you prefer Wording C but have not explained why) - in the face of the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus is described thus: "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." (See also WP:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia.", and WP:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion: "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" [my emphasis]) I have shown that the consensus is to use Wording B. Unless you can prove otherwise, do you seriously mean to challenge the consensus? Someone has got an awful lot of WP editing to do if Wording C (or for that matter Wording A) were accepted as the right phrasing/punctuation. Alexetc (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Three points. You may consider my changing to wording C to have been "poor form", but I assure you it is perfectly normal procedure here as part of a way of getting to consensus. Someone puts up a wording; someone changes it; there is discussion; someone (it doesn't matter who) puts up a different wording in an attempt to overcome a problem; it's either accepted or not accepted; and the process either ends or continues. Obviously, at that time, I had no idea that this extraordinarily minor disagreement (over the placement of a single comma, in a very short and obscure stub) would escalate in the way it has. When I have written an article here, I do not then seek to defend my wording against allcomers; on the contrary, I welcome other editors developing the article and improving my wording. In coming up with a "new" wording, I thought I was being helpful and constructive - and, based on my experience here, in 99% of cases that is how it would have been perceived. Your tenacity over this is unusual, and surprising.

On the question of your wording being preferable to my wording - I simply disagree. You accept that your wording is "clunky". There is no need for any wording here to be "clunky". Quite the opposite - it needs to be clear, unambiguous, and well constructed. My wording C is not "clunky", so I prefer it. English is a very malleable language. What do you suggest would be a less clunky wording?

You claim that there is a "consensus" for your style of wording. That is simply untrue. Articles here are written in a wide variety of styles. The Manual of Style gives guidance (not prescription, guidance) on such matters - but not, so far as I can see, on this precise question. Perhaps it should - but, it doesn't.

So, we agree to differ. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am, I assure you, in no doubt that you're intentions are to be "helpful and constructive"; I can see your contribution to pages is significant. But in the spirit of good faith, please also be assured that I too am attempting to be "helpful and constructive" and this needs to be done through rigorous discussion. Punctuation and grammar are as important and worthy of discussion as content, otherwise you do them a disservice and put them at risk of misuse. I do realise that with the wording currently at Wording B, I am (or should be) satisfied that the correct phrasing and punctuation has been used; however I'm just as interested in explaining why this should be so, hence the "tenancity"!. I know that to you this seems like a "minor disagreement", but it isn't about the incorrect comma usage merely "in a very short and obscure stub". Since its use is so utterly widespread, it applies to any and every use of it. I agree that the Manual of Style doesn't cover this precise question, but neither does it cover the use of a comma in the wording "I, like running" or "I like, running", in order to clarify that that is incorrect; it is incorrect, and one could, if one didn't already know it, determine this through a combination of policy, common sense and consensus. Again, if you're arguing for a change to the concensus, that will need its own discussion.

You can't now attack Wording B for being "clunky" (a word you introduced) as it therefore also applies to your original Wording A, since the only difference is simply a comma that we have, I hope, now agreed is incorrect; not to mention the fact that you yourself both used that phrasing and referred to it as "perfectly normal in British English". The issue - the slight accumulation of the two "the"s (which you don't get in clauses with no "the"), or however one would clarify the "clunkiness" (I don't know actually know what you think is clunky about it) - is so minimal and can not justify changing "normal English", unless it is unclear, misleading or ungrammatical; I dont believe any of these is true, and to me Wording C is clunkier (see below), non-consensus and wrong in this context. To make an exception for proper nouns that begin with "The" would surely thereby sacrifice consensus. Compare to the follwing examples of a proper noun with no "the": Judge Dredd: "Judge Joseph Dredd is a fictional character whose comic strip in the British science fiction anthology 2000 AD [...] ... Judge Dredd was named the Seventh Greatest Comic Character by the British magazine Empire." (I know the opening sentence doesn't exactly mirror the William Hickey sentence, but both sentences follow Wording B). As I have said before, I would have quoted Alan Rusbridger had you not changed it from following Wording B to Wording C in the course of this discussion.

Wording C is clunkier to me by pulling you up short on the phrase "..., a British newspaper" where that is not the subject of exposition in the article. I know the distinction is subtle but, as I say, "British newspaper" is a short adjective-phrase and not the descripive thrust of the sentence about William Hickey. The phrase "the British newspaper" is simply a modifier-adjective phrase to the proper name-noun phrase "the Daily Express"; such wording is always (in all but the most arcane uses) phrased per normal English grammar: adjective noun. If you were to introduce a phrase that expands the discourse, that would be a parenthetical phrase, and as such would be set off with a comma and subordinate clause. So (to paraphrase slightly for ease), "William Hickey is a column in the British newspaper the Daily Express." should be used based on context, meaning, grammar, punctuation and consensus use; were it the context, the phrasing "William Hickey is a column in the Daily Express, a British newspaper famed for its gossip coverage." could be used; but simply "It is a column in the Daily Express, a British newspaper." should not be used.

It really is simply the consensus, unless the many, many examples I've cited - whether with a "The" or not - arrived at the identical phrasing by complete chance, and furthermore you are suggesting they're all wrong. As I've already said, grammar and punctuation mean writing the sentence per Wording C is correct, but I simply haven't come across any uses on Wikipedia, where the opening sentence and context is identical (or near enough) to Wording C, where writers have done, so one shouldn't. I have run many Google searches and have not found anything other than Wording B (examples as already cited at length in this post and earlier). Again, if you can provide some material evidence that Wording C ia common way of writing such a sentence, please - please! - cite some pages from Wikipedia as example. Alexetc (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The "clunkiness" directly relates to the presence or absence of a comma. "William Hickey is a column in the British newspaper, the Daily Express" is not clunky, perhaps because it reflects normal speech patterns. "William Hickey is a column in the British newspaper the Daily Express" is clunky, because it does not reflect those patterns. The problem arises in part because the phrase "the Daily Express" is three words, not one. "Judge Dredd was named the Seventh Greatest Comic Character by the British magazine Empire" is not clunky, it is acceptable - though I would not argue against inserting a comma there, as well. (Or, should I say, "there as well"?) Whether or not grammarians argue that one wording is correct and follows supposed rules, and the other one does not, is, I'm afraid, of little importance to me. The English language is full of "ungrammatical" phraseology, which is nevertheless widely understood, and appropriate for use before our global readership here. And I do wish you would not use the word "consensus" in this discussion. The word has a fairly specific meaning in Wikipedia discussions (WP:CONSENSUS), which does not appear to be the meaning that you give it. There is no consensus that one precise approach to comma use in these circumstances is acceptable(,) and one is unacceptable. There is no guidance that we should use clunky wording - quite the opposite. I think that your approach is unnecessarily prescriptive, but I urge you to raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style if you wish to pursue it more widely across the project. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For disclosure, I come here after this question was referenced on RDL, and purely out of curiosity. "...the British newspaper, the Daily Express" unquestionably implies that there is only one British newspaper and it is named Daily Express. If you find the double "the" an issue, I would submit either of the following corrective options: "...published in the Daily Express, a British newspaper." or "...published in British newspaper the Daily Express." ÷seresin 02:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)