Talk:Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Page Rename

Following the resolution of the VfD, I did change the title of this page, as discussed below. I felt Marreen's suggestion of "in the press" has a slightly wrong meaning, at least in a USAian context. The press is generally and firstly taken to mean journalistic press specifically, even if books, professional journals, and whatnot, are technically "press" also. I also did not quite like my own addition of "academic"—encyclopedias, for example, while usually written by academics, are not precisely academic writing themselves. I felt that "professional writing" encompassed all the areas we are interested in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:22, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

[edit] VfD voted down

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics

[edit] Google example

Worth considering, I think: Google News: "Her Majesty" "queen elizabeth" Mr. Jones 10:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you feel those hits illustrate, Mr. Jones? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:16, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Simply that some do and some don't. It's not clear cut. Mr. Jones 16:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's not quite the message I would have drawn. I'm not surprised Google returns hits--of course it does. I wonder if there'd be a way to actually compare hits w/ and w/o the style; but I can't think of anything reliable. However, browsing the first 40-50 hits, they seemed all to be either quotational uses or lifestyle/entertainment type articles (not main editorial/news content). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

[edit] "Journalism" in title

Neutrality has made great progress on improving this article. However, as I think about it, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the title change. The minor rearrangment of word order ("use" to the front) is indifferent to me. However, dropping "academic" from the title seems to exclude part of what is discussed. Sources like Enyclopedia Brittanica or Columbia Concise Encyclopedia are definitely not journalistic sources, but are still discussed (and should be discussed) in the article.

I wonder if we might not change the title to:

  • Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in journalism and academia
  • Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in publishing
  • Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional publications
  • Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing
  • Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in the press (per Maurreen)
  • ...something else...

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I agree with Lulu's basic point. A couple other options: "... in the press" or delete from the article the informations that is not about use in journalis (such as use in encyclopedias, etc.) Maurreen 19:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD done wrong

Perhaps out of inability — but also quite possibly out of malice—Jtdirl listed this page as VfD. However, he did not list it in the VfD directory, thereby making it hard to find if you were not following the page itself. Presumably, he wanted to be able to "stuff the ballot box" w/o having disinterested editors become aware of the VfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/e/Talk%7EUse_of_courtesy_titles_and_honorifics_in_professional_writing_c9d9.html"