Talk:Simon's Sircus

Request for Comment about sic usage

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for the usage of sic. While editors opining do clarify rationales, misuse is a strong term to use here, considering it can also lead to assist, however that seems to not be the case. Closing with effect that it's unnecessary to use in this particular scenario. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 14:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

---

User:Pyrope wants to have the article start with Simon’s Sircus [sic] and do the same sort of thing in De Havilland Sea Vixen#Operational history [ "Simon's Sircus" (sic) ]. I maintain this is a misuse of sic. These are neither quotes, nor are they a cause of confusion, especially when you consider that Simon's Sircus is linked in the latter case. This is no different than what is done with Krispy Kreme and every other attention-seeking offbeat spelling (nothing), though Pyrope insists otherwise. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See prior discussion at User talk:Pyrope#Sic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarityfiend originally removed the {{sic}} tags claiming that it was to be used only "for unintended errors." This I swiftly disproved by pointing to our own template documentation. They then switched tack and claimed that such tags are "only for quotes." This, in turn, I disproved by reference to the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary. Now, because I "won't listen to [them]", they have decided to open an RfC. To date, Clarityfiend has offered no support for their position beyond their own preference. To my mind, this spelling and its context are sufficiently unusual that offering our readers a quick reassurance that, yes, the spelling should look that odd, is a service and in no way detracts from the readability of this page. This is particularly true on the aeroplane's page where the spelling is used in a prose passage, where such jarring anomaly may cause the reader to pause were there not a tag applied. Pyrope 11:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong to use it but I don't think it's necessary either. I wasn't confused by the spelling but others may find it helpful.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The template documentation does not support you: "This notation is placed after a point in a quotation ...", and Simon's Sircus shouldn't be in quotes normally, at least in these two articles. As for the OED definition, it also states it "to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original". "Quoted". As for your contention that familiarity somehow bestows an exemption, you're assuming that Krispy Kreme is universally known, which is not the case. Furthermore, this type of atypical spelling is so prevalent, particularly in the business world (see for example the Economist article "Silly name, silly company, silly product? Down with typographically tiresome corporate names", which is in the same vein of shenanigans) it can hardly be considered surprising anymore. (Does e e cummings get sic'd upon?) Perhaps most telling of all is this: the only time a sic is applied to Simon's Sircus is in what appear to be mirrors of these two articles. For example, Testing Tornado: Cold War Naval Fighter Pilot to BAe Chief Test Pilot doesn't use it, nor does Phantom from the Cockpit, Jackspeak: A guide to British Naval slang & usage, etc. I've never seen it used in this manner anywhere else.Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The OED state "copied or quoted", so get your facts straight. Besides, as I have already pointed out elsewhere to you, titles are a form of quotation: you are repeating someone else's words. This is certainly how the Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press Stylebook treat them. I really don't understand your passion here, and you still haven't actually put into words why you are so vehemently against something that doesn't detract from the text at all but which might help some readers. Pyrope 00:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've explained why I'm strongly opposed. Nobody does it anywhere for sensational spelling AFAIK. Can you provide any example "in the wild"? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wadsworth Guide to MLA Documentation, MLA Update states (in a heading), "Do Not Use [sic] after Intentional Errors Such as Dialect Spellings", while the American Psychological Association style blog provides an "Example article with an intentional misspelling (do not use [sic] or a footnote) DeAngelis, T. (2003). It's more than reading, writing and 'rithmetic."

• weak oppose using sic here, though I would put it in de Havilland Sea Vixen. I'd be curious to know whether sic is used as proposed in other articles similarly apparently misspelt. Batternut (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would you use it in Sea Vixen? It's linked there, making it clear that there is no mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The link is irrelevant to the text. Redirects exist for many typos, so a link shows and proves nothing. Batternut (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Such intentional misspellings are run of the mill nowadays. I think in reading this article, I'd be more stymied by the presence of "[sic]", than by any bizarre spelling. – Uanfala (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose using sic here, because rather than helping the reader, it's disruptive. In the best interpretation of it, it causes a hiccup in reading rhythm when encountering it and leads to confusion; in the worst interpretation, it's a patronizing insult.

Not being familiar with "Simon's Sircus" before this, I had a look at a previous version containing it (this one). My gut reaction to seeing it, was:

1. Insult: "You are an idiot: you don't know how to spell 'Circus,' so we're going to tell you. (Maybe you should really be hanging out on Simple Wikipedia and not here.) "
2. Confusion: "Okay, they're alerting me with '[sic]' here about something; it's obviously not simply a warning that it's not 'Circus' because that would be a complete and utter waste of time, so it must be that this was actually named after a 'Mr Sirckus' or 'Serkes' or something like that (is that Hungarian, or Greek, maybe?) but due to some mix-up when the group was first established, they got his name wrong and spelled it 'Sircus' by mistake and then it got frozen in stone and now it's too late to change and they're stuck with it; so I better go figure out who 'Mr Sirkus'-however-you-spell-it was, and learn about him."

Either way, it doesn't help the reader, and that's the main reason to oppose it. Another reason to oppose it, is that there is a better, and non-disruptive way to accomplish the same thing, namely, the {{Not a typo}} template. This will render (non-disruptively) as 'Sircus' in the article, but remain visible in the code in order to alert any editor tempted to change it. Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The {{Not a typo}} template is a good point, and would certainly help out where a misguided "helpful" editor is concerned. I entirely disagree with you assertion that it comes across as an insult to the reader though, that's just a bizarre claim. Someone who knows what [sic] indicates is certainly going to know how to spell 'circus', and if your ego is so fragile that you are affronted by that sort of a thing you have bigger problems in life than Wikipedia. I have seen [sic] used as an insult toward the original writer, in order to highlight ineptitude or lack of education, but against the reader? No. The confusion aspect might work from some angles, but then context militates against your argument here and your examples are, again, bizarre. I get that some people, for whatever reason (probably the perceived insult?) don't like [sic] at all, but some of this reasoning is simply spurious. Pyrope 12:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Clarityfiend. This is branding and I think the reader should understand that. I've always supporting running-off the misguided "helpful" editors. Of course, the best solution is just to delete this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As a non-native speaker of English who reads English WP, I think the use of "sic" helps me to understand that the subject of the article is connected to the circus. I think that the use of "sic" could hardly be described as a patronizing insult. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Sic is not necessary, I feel. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.