Talk:Serial comma

Arguments Against Section

I was reading this article and came to the "arguments for and against" part. One of the arguments against was, "that use of the comma is against conventional practice." I don't understand this as an argument against it; indeed, the citation is simply another book about English. There are many sources (and legitimate authorities in English; surely a book does not solely determine what is "conventional practice" simply by calling itself The Facts of English?) listed later in the article that are both for and against the use of the serial comma. Thus, how can we say that not using it is the norm, when the rest of the article takes an entirely neutral point of view? I feel like there are of course arguments for both sides of the issue, but this is not a legitimate one.

I think that bullet point should be removed.Stever Augustus (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that this isn't an accurate summary of the position of the book, or that you don't agree with the postion of the book, or that "against conventional practice" is not an "argument for"? Chrisrus (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that "against conventional practice" isn't an argument against its use because this statement only offers one source's opinion that it is "against conventional practice." There are multiple sources later in the article that both support and oppose its use, but why should this source be the one that determines what is and isn't "conventional practice?" Stever Augustus (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the book is being used as a reference to the fact that this argument is used, not that it actually is "against conventional practice". I think the article makes it clear that "conventional practice" changes, depending on the convention. Thehalfone (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are there any arguments for or against? This section presupposes that there should be a blanket rule - you are either for the Oxford comma, or against it. No room for people who might use it in some situations but not in others, then. This section needs to be balanced with another section that discusses in which situations the form is considered appropriate. Style guidance is just one of these. Unfortunately, I personally cannot be arsed writing such a section 86.169.133.11 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Series/serial comma

First two contributions copied from User talk:Rreagan007 and User talk:Snalwibma, because it seems better here, and maybe others have some opinions to offer

Sorry about that. I was a bit hasty! You are clearly right - though I don't think it's a very common name for it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"series comma" is actually the name for it that I was taught in grade school and I think it benefits the article to have it as an alternate name, but if you think it's too obscure I won't put it back in if you take it out. However, if it's left in, it gives the opportunity to use a serial comma in the very first line of the article to separate Oxford comma from Harvard comma, which I sort of like also. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your last point. I think it's a good idea to avoid all sentence constructions in the article where the question "should a serial comma be used here?" arises. Otherwise we end up with silly arguments between the pro- and anti-serial-comma camps about how the article should be written. You think it's a neat idea to insert a comma between Oxford and Harvard in the first sentence, so you insert it; I think it should be removed, so I remove it. And so it goes on. I think it would be better to rewrite that sentence to avoid the issue - and I'd suggest something like "The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and occasionally as the series comma)". Any thoughts, anyone? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize there is another serial comma in the very next line: "(usually and, or, and sometimes nor)" Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not any more, there isn't! Though actually that one wasn't quite a straightforward serial comma, more of a somewhat suspect syntactical construction. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, having 2 or's in a row seems odd to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Viewpoint?

Is there a specific preference for Wikipedia articles (to my understanding which are generally written in American English)? If there is, should it be mentioned in this article? Do other language construct articles list which Wikipedia uses? Dataxpress (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS:SERIAL: "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia". --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

... because (again, it's all in WP:MOS) Wikipedia articles are not "written in American English". No doubt American editors are in the majority, and therefore it is true that there are more American-English than British-English articles - but there is a clear policy that both forms (and others) are allowed. One example of an article on a major topic that uses British English (and constantly has to be corrected back to that style!) is In vitro fertilisation (note the spelling with an S). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, see section Wikipedia:ENGVAR. I think the Wikipedia policy is a separate issue and shouldn't be included in the article itself. Tayste (talk / contrib) 08:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Was that what Dataxpress was suggesting? If so, then I'm against it! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems I missed the point: no, not encyclopaedic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my first question I had left unanswered after reading this article, what to do on wikipedia? Should at least be included under "see also", so I'll add that. Mathmo ^Talk 02:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it belongs in the article. That's rather self-referential and seems very odd to me. I was about to find a justification in WP:SELF, but now I see the edit has been reverted. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd seen it under "See Also" under a lot of other articles so I thought it made sense, or the other alternative is italics at the top like with COI. Mathmo ^Talk 08:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote seems like a fine solution. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the question could also be asked, where do you go IF you want to know whether WP has a "comma policy"? There are how many different policies - and how many on just language variations? I didn't actually know that it was primarily a difference between British and American English (I use it, and like it), so I would have no reason to particularly think of looking for "English vs. British" in the WP policies. So I typed into Google "wikipedia oxford comma", expecting it to come up with a "WP:" page. This is the closest bone that it found.. So I would vote it being appropriate to mention on the page. There isn't even a mention of the word "Wikipedia" anywhere in the article.. Jimw338 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed: I shouldn't have to go to this talk page to find out Wikipedia's policy. Yes, including it is "rather self-referential", but why can't Wikipedia be encyclopedic about itself? Excluding it seems needlessly pedantic. Hga (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments to editors within the text

I placed a comment within the text but it was removed again, with an edit summary saying that editors should read the article. Yes, I agree they should, but some anonymous editors don't. My comment was to dissuade (mainly anonymous) editors from inserting serial commas within the article, since it uses British English. What's wrong with having the comment there? Tayste (edits) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. The comment was addressed to the editor who inserted the serial comma - our reverts seem to have overlapped. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I meant it for future such editors. Tayste (edits) 00:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again. My comment "Revert. Editors of the entry about serial commas should read it." was intended as a reply to "The entry about serial commas should use them.". Removal of your inline comment was an accident, for which I apologise, grovel and abase myself. All right? I'd put it back, but I don't think it's quite right as it stands (or rather doesn't stand). Use of the serial comma isn't as simple as a US/UK distinction. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

True, it could be worded better. How best to leave a message to future editors (especially anonymous ones who don't read the talk page) to avoid trivial such edits? Yes, in some circumstances UK English still uses it, but in that first spot in the lead it just looks wrong to me. Tayste (edits) 19:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Better still might be to avoid the need for such a note by avoiding all sentence constructions in which the question "should there be a serial comma?" arises. The parenthesis in the first sentence in currently (I think) the only place in the article where this is a problem (apart, of course, from the various examples). How about changing it to something like "alternatively series comma, Oxford comma, Harvard comma" – or maybe "also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and occasionally as the series comma"? Just a thought! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinking. Is it really known as the series comma? How often is this term used? Can we ditch it? Tayste (edits) 04:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess not, after a bit of googling. Tayste (edits) 04:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. See above for some earlier discussion on "series comma", and indeed on whether the article should use serial commas. I think your solution is excellent, BTW. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity in first section

The second paragraph begins like so:

"Opinions vary among writers and editors on the usage or avoidance of the serial comma. In American English it is standard in most non-journalistic writing, which typically follows the Chicago Manual of Style. Journalists, however, usually follow the Associated Press Style Guide, which advises against it. It is less often used in British English."

But since opinions are said to vary "on the usage or avoidance" of the serial comma, we can't be sure what the "it" is in the next three sentences. Is it the use of the comma, or its avoidance?"

I genuinely don't know.

William Knorpp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.47.114 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, all three sentences clearly say "the serial comma". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed "it" to "the serial comma" in the second sentence. I believe this change should clear up even the possibility of ambiguity. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More nuanced expression required?

I wonder if some of the confusion here is caused by the fact that the article is not written carefully enough in a few places. Some interpretations on the talk page seem to be based on the assumption that the serial comma is the norm, and any particular instance where it is omitted is a one-off omission, either an error (or laziness) on the part of the writer or a decision to omit it in this particular instance. In fact, of course, the omission of a serial comma is not a one-off omission but adherence to an alternative norm. And, as a reader, it's not as if you are reading a passage full of serial commas, and then suddenly come across a "missing" one. The whole of what you are reading is written acording to the no-serial-comma convention. Would it be easier to grasp if the whole article was expressed more clearly in terms of different conventions rather than specific instances? For example, should "Use of the serial comma can sometimes remove ambiguity" be rewritten as something like "The style that always uses the serial comma may be less likely to result in ambiguity"? And should "Common arguments against the serial comma" become "Common arguments against consistent usage of the serial comma in simple lists"? I wonder also if we should more carefully refer to the avoidance of a serial comma in simple lists, rather than a more blanket avoidance of the serial comma, to acknowledge that the no-serial-comma convention does use one where the items in the list are complex, or wherever it is needed to make the meaning clear? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be a welcome improvement, subject only to a minor reservation about "Common arguments against consistent usage of the serial comma in simple lists", which seems a bit cumbersome; perhaps just "In simple lists..." or similar. Otherwise: soon as you like!--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Strunk and White oppose, rather than support

Since this page tells us that Strunk and White advise use a comma after each term except the last, shouldn't Strunk and White be listed as opposing the serial comma? As of now, Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 6:04 PM EDT, the article shows Strunk and White listed among those supporting mandatory use, but it seems to me that the article's telling us they oppose its use. Mooncaine (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they support the serial comma. Take this example: I like A, B, and C. There is no comma after the last item (C), but it's a serial comma. I think it's clearer in examples where the sentence doesn't end with the list, as in I like A, B, and C for breakfast. -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the examples at Bartleby under section 2. -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Strunk & White support. They give "red, white, and blue" as an example, and they also reference the US GPO manual, which supports. Pechmerle (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation of parenthetical thought

The lead currently begins like this: The serial comma (also known as the series comma, Oxford comma or Harvard comma). I see some recent edits have inserted or removed the serial comma from the list of three. I'm curious what this article should do, so I thought I'd start a discussion as neutrally as possible. An argument in favor of its use in the parenthetical thought is that it demonstrates the article's concept. An argument against its use is that the serial comma is not standard in some countries or styles. I have a feeling editors will come along and try to "fix" it one way or the other. Can we decide which to prefer, or possibly rewrite it to avoid a potential edit war? -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We in fact have a nascent edit war forming. By analogy to WP:ENGVAR, it seems pretty clear that serial commas should get used in an article on serial commas; I would like to hear from the opponents of the serial comma in that phrase... -kcr 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on the analogy to WP:ENGVAR? I'd have said if there was an analogy, it would imply that the article should not be unnecessarily "corrected". The article says at some length that the serial comma is neither "correct" nor "incorrect". Why should an article on the serial comma use serial commas? Should an article on France be in French? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that parenthesis in the first sentence is the only place in the article where the issue of whether to use a serial comma currently arises. In order to avoid an edit war (and Ian Dalziel is right - there is just as strong an argument for avoiding the serial comma as for using it, in an article on the subject), I suggest the best solution is to rewrite it so as to avoid the issue. How about "The serial comma (alternative names: series comma, Oxford comma, Harvard comma)"? Or something like "The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and sometimes referred to as the series comma)"? Or "The serial comma or series comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma)"? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the kind of wording I had in mind with rewriting it to avoid the serial comma issue. It strikes me as a logical solution that no one would likely be upset with. I like your second suggested wording best, namely The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and sometimes referred to as the series comma). The reason I don't prefer the first suggestion is that it would perhaps encourage someone to put in a conjunction to form a serial comma, while the third suggestion privileges "series comma", which in my experience is a less common term. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems about right to me. --Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple days, so I made the change. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the periphrasis in the current wording, since the extra words mean almost nothing. So I changed the introductory phrase to The serial or series comma (also Oxford comma or Harvard comma). This makes the most sense to me, since it groups the terms logically by what they specify: description or location.

Phoenixrod says that this unwarrantedly privileges the least common name, "series comma". I agree with this, but it also makes no sense to separate two essentially identical terms.

So how about we remove the parenthesis so that there isn't the implication that any term is less common, but rather the intended implication, that we're grouping terms by similarity? — The serial or series comma, or Oxford or Harvard comma,.... — Eru·tuon 05:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument. Nevertheless, I prefer the current wording, which to me is logical for the order in which the alternative names are presented (and avoiding use of a serial comma in the list). Your proposed wording has too many "or"s for my taste; I can see a reader either 1) getting bogged down in the "or" choices, or 2) changing the phrase to include a serial comma (which we are trying to avoid). But if a consensus forms for this new wording, I'd be fine with that. What do other editors think? -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenixrod. The current wording is slightly longer than what Erutuon proposes, but the extra words, far from "mean[ing] almost nothing", actually clarify the sentence structure and help the reader to see the meaning. Using a parenthesis points clearly to the key point: "The serial comma (...) is the comma used immediately before ..." With three alternative names to list, I think using the primary name, followed by a parenthesis giving the alternatives, is much better than a rather undifferentiated list of terms separated by "or". Above, I proposed "The serial comma (alternative names: series comma, Oxford comma, Harvard comma) ..." Would that help? IMHO it's ugly compared with the current rather elegant phrasing - but what thoughts? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The current wording doesn't seem elegant to me, because the phrases "known as" and "referred to as" don't convey anything distinct; the only significant word is "sometimes", which conveys that "series comma" is the least frequent term. So we may as well rephrase it as The serial comma (also Oxford or Harvard comma; sometimes series comma) for the sake of brevity and clarity. I think this wording would be preferable to one with three commas, into which someone would no doubt feel the itch to add a conjunction. — Eru·tuon 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand had no children

Ayn Rand had no children, so the phrase "My mother, Ayn Rand, and God" would not be ambiguous. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.157.135 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

YOU PEDANTIC WEASEL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.54 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is only true if you know that Ayn Rand had no children. As I was otherwise unaware of this fact, that sentence would seem to imply that Ayn Rand did have at least one child (the "me"), hence causing ambiguity. In addition to that, it could be purported that the author is using mother in a less biological sense (seeing Ayn Rand as a mother, even if Ayn Rand doesn't see the relationship the same way) or doesn't know otherwise (thus actually believing to be Ayn Rand's child). -24.67.67.238 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also obvious that the mother being referred is also not God. But the point was made and the hilarious effect was welcomed. Juan Pablo de la Torre (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, that sentence is incomplete. It's wrong no matter how you put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.191.235 (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

importance of the comma in menus of options

I first want to thank the editors of this entry for creating such a useful reference page for students. I have occasionally gathered examples of ambiguity, but yours here are clear and illustrative.

I'd like to emphasis the importance of the comma in menus of options. The food example is good, but some might question its import (who cares which foods are grouped if you ate them all?). You might point out that this is often a problem on restaurant menus, when we might not be able to figure out which are our actual choices. I've also seen this problem show up in college curricula requirements, e.g.:

        "Students must take History 110 and either English 130, 140 or 180 and Sociology 190."  

This one (an actual example of a proposed curricular change) is quite fraught: the lack of comma after 140 and 180 (toegher with an either/or construction) leads it to be read in at least two different ways: Are Eng 130, 140, and 180 grouped together as a choice, with Soc 190 required? or are Eng 130 & 140 grouped, and Eng 180 and Soc 190 grouped? Adding a comma after either 140 or 180--or after both--might resolve it, but I'm not quite sure it would.

The Wiki entry might just clarify the importance of this ambiguity in cases like menus of options. Thanks again for this entry. Troutfang (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While your question is still important, in this particular example, I think it's moderately clear that the 180 is tied into the same construction as the 130 & 140, as it is still omitting the class title (otherwise it would say "History 110 and either English 130 and 140 or English 180 and Sociology 190" or something similar. Trying to tie "180 and Sociology 190" together just doesn't work, since "180" means nothing without the preceding "English". On the other hand, I'm not sure why they would put the additional requirement of Sociology 190 at the end, instead of along with the earlier required course: "History 110, Sociology 190, and either English 130, 140, or 180." So... I'm still a little confused. Hah. Goes to show. Anyway, my point is that there's more confusion to that construction than a serial comma - it seems to be missing commas left and right, since there should likely at the very least be one after "History 110". -24.67.67.238 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoid clarity unless you want to be clear

My favourite line in this entire article is this:

"The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (6th edition, 2002) recommends against it, except "to ensure clarity" (p. 102)."

In short, there's no need to be clear unless you wish to be clear.

That's a fabulous premise for a linguistic style manual!

Not a real ambiguity

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

is ambiguous only for first look. In the article, reader can mistakenly suppose that Ayn Rand and God are Teresa's parents. Let us look at this option from the point of author.

Teresa, whose mother is Ayn Rand and father is God, wants to write a dedication. She understands, however, that it should not be ambiguous. The full form of such dedication would be:

To my mother and father: Ayn Rand and God.

You see that the sentence has a colon: comma would mean that dedication is addressed to 4 separate persons. With a colon it's unambiguously clear: it's addressed to 2 persons who are exactly mother and father. After that, Teresa wants shorten the sentence:

To my parents Ayn Rand and God.

It's possible to use the colon here too after parents (like in I have two sisters: Clara and Stella and I love my sisters Clara and Stella.) But the comma is completely unsuitable because it acts as a semantic divider between parents and their names. Anyway, whether Teresa will use the colon in such dedication or not, she wouldn't use the comma, and hence, the initial phrase is unambiguous. --91.77.212.246 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a colon can be used to introduce a defining clause, and with a colon it would be indeed be unambiguous. Your advice to Teresa (use a colon) is sound, but the function of this article is not to give advice. The article documents what actually happens in a world where writers do use commas for various purposes, both as separators in lists and to introduce defining clauses. It is by no means the case that Teresa "wouldn't use the comma" - she might well do so, and she would make no grammatical error in doing so, and in so doing she would write an ambiguous phrase. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to 91.77.212.246's comments, I suggest that there is (or should be) a distinction between "I love my sisters Clara and Stella", on the one hand, and "I love my sisters, Clara and Stella", on the other. In the first case (without the comma), we could imagine that the writer (or speaker!) has, say, four sisters, but is expressing his or her love for just two of them. That doesn't necessarily imply that he or she loves only those two sisters and not the other two. Perhaps, for example, only those two have been accused of a crime, and are therefore the only ones under discussion right now. (The example may seem rather forced, but it's not difficult to imagine all manner of circumstances in which only certain members of a group are under discussion whilst others go unmentioned.) In the second case (with the comma), the writer is expressing love for both of his or her two sisters. The comma indicates – I think unambiguously – that that there are only two sisters, and no others. (That, of course, says nothing about brothers, of which he or she may have none, one, two, or whatever. But brothers, if there are any, are not under discussion here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.0.60 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Contested lines

The article currently contains the following text:

This ambiguity does not exist under style recommendations that recommend that appositives be enclosed in parentheses, as in

To my mother (Ayn Rand) and God

I contest this assertion from a perspective viewpoint. The ambiguity to the reader remains, unless the reader is aware of the idiosyncracies of the style guide employed, and knows that this particular style guide is being employed to begin with. In the above example, while the parentheses make the appositive case clear, they do nothing to clarify the sentence 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God'. In this case, the reader has no immediate means of determining if there is a particular style guide in use that prescribes parenthetic appositives or if they should interpret the sentence with comma-delimited appositives.

It could be argued that 'within the context of a particular style guide' that ambiguity doesn't exist, but this seems more like a systemic clarification than a resolution since it fails to resolve the actual, real ambiguity in the sentence, as you might achieve by recasting the sentence. I could similarly say 'in my system, 4 means 6' but readers unfamiliar with my system, or not knowing that it even applies, are still going to default to the standard interpretation. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You say: "In the above example, while the parentheses make the appositive case clear, they do nothing to clarify the sentence 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God'." Well, they do if you put them in, but only if you put them in. The whole point is that the sentence is ambiguous without them. Or have I misunderstood you? Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The section in the article where these lines appear suggests that 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' is ambiguous because it could be either an appositive (my mother is Ayn Rand) or a series (God, Ayn Rand, my mother). The lines I then quoted suggest that this ambiguity can be avoided if a style guide using parentheses for appositives is used.

I disagree that this is a true statement - it reads to me to be a non-sequitor fallacy. Because the style guide removes ambiguity in the case of appositives does not mean it correspondingly removes ambiguity in the case of serial commas. Under such a style guide, while the sentence 'To my mother (Ayn Rand) and God' is unambiguously an appositive, 'To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God' remains ambiguous unless the reader A) is aware that this style guide has a specific rule about appositives, and B) assumes that the absence of parentheses is sufficient to identify that the commas in this case are serial commas. This makes such a guide a clarification or exception to the standard rules of English (eg. 'when we say X we mean Y') rather than a solution for the ambiguity that you might achieve by recasting the sentence (eg. 'To God and to my mother, Ayn Rand').

So basically I'm contesting that the lines I quoted in my above post belong in the article, since they don't appear to be factual. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not the style guide that removes the ambiguity but the parentheses. The guide is being praised for recommending them. The style guide is to help writers---not readers, as you seem to imply. Readers are not supposed to know what the guide says. "The parentheses clarify: good for the style guide" is the meaning. Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's also how I read the section. I don't think it implies that the reader needs to be familiar with the style guide. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's partly what I'm trying to convey though, that the parentheses clarify an appositive when they're present, but do nothing to clarify the case where commas are used. In cases where commas appear, the reader is not aided in seeing whether or not that sentence is an appositive or a serial comma. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a hint

A "strong narrator...is generally unsuitable in an encyclopedia" is the policy set out in WP:TONE, yet the hectoring "Take a hint: It's the SERIAL comma" has been reinserted after deletion. This "tone" is typical of the whole paragraph and I propose removal, again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Snalwibma—thanks. WP:SEMI next time? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. This addition of a personal essay has been reverted several times in the last few days. It has no place in the article. Apart from being in breach of Wikipedia policies too numerous to list (WP:RS, WP:NOTBLOG, etc.), what it says is simply WRONG. How can anyone, seeing a comma in a sentence, know that it is a "serial comma" as opposed to an appositive comma or a comma fulfilling any other function, other than from the structure of the sentence? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish usage

The Real Academia de la Lengua Española actually states that the serial comma must be used in some cases to avoid ambiguity, as you can see. "El uso de la coma es incompatible con las conjunciones y, e, ni, o, u cuando este signo se utiliza para separar elementos de una misma serie o miembros gramaticalmente equivalentes dentro de un mismo enunciado. Sin embargo, hay otros casos en que no solo el uso conjunto de la coma y la conjunción es admisible, sino necesario"

roughly "The use of the comma is incompatible with the conjunctions and, nor, or, when this sign is utilized to separate elements of a given series o grammatically equivalent members of a given utterance. However, there are other cases in which not only the use of the comma alongside the conjunction is admissible, but necessary" It goes on to give a few examples.

201.239.82.233 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the ambiguity

Hi, I'm not quite sure what exactly was ambiguous in "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

In Finnish, you'd punctuate "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God" to mean a list of three items while you'd write "To my parents Ayn Rand and God" to claim extraordinary heritage. The third option, i.e. "Oxford comma", is out of question here, but used to separate subclauses. Is there a reason leaving the comma out altogether isn't ok in English?

-- Sigmundur (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi - Yes, you can leave the comma out altogether, and write a sentence that unambiguously says your parents are Ayn Rand and God. But very commonly in English a comma is used before a modifying phrase, just as it is after a modifying phrase in a different position in the sentence. In the case of divine parentage, "Ayn Rand and God" modifies "my parents", and so a comma can be used. But the issue here, of course, is not "how should I write a sentence to mean X?" but "faced with a sentence saying X, how do I interpret it?" SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not throw out all commas?

Would save a lot of space! How come the sillier usage here doesn't have a special name? Or does it? Would be interesting to know. I nominate "non-sense" commas! Oh and I think some examples of how to rework sentences using non-ambiguous punctuation/phrases would be insightful here without being too much like a manual. A list of suggestions, like use a colon in X circumstance would be nice, and even better if sourced from some manuals of style from X, Y, and Z of whatever. --67.54.235.190 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who speak normal english (which some people seem to call slang) have a solution for this. It's actually a very common practise in spoken english. I think you will find it resolves ambiguity in most cases. Here's an example of use:

- My usual brekkie is coffee, bacon n' eggs and toast.

This normal english is more convenient (as are programming languages - you never get grammar mistakes with them) than nitpicked english. I like to think I use a good mix of 'em both :)

Oh yeah.. Question.. In nitpicked english, what about semi-colons in 'sub lists' with 3 or more items? For some reason I can never find an example. Only examples with 2 items.

Bear, tiger, dragon, cat; dog; snake and mouse, etc...

Is that right (aside from the sublist not making sense)?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.155.6 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 

Unresolved ambiguity section does not require citations

Citations would not improve the "Unresolved ambiguity" section. It simply presents examples that clearly and usefully demonstrate ambiguities. The truth or source of the example phrases is irrelevant and citations would do nothing to increase their value as examples. That they demonstrate ambiguity is obvious on inspection. Remove the request for citations. DenisHowe (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Throw that request out! --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical

I came to the article to learn how old the dispute is between good and evil pro and con serial comma users. I expected a history hundreds of years long, but from what I can see here, it could well be a post WW II issue. Anyone care to add a timeline of editing style on this controversy? —EncMstr (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why this title?

I know Google is not a reliable source but it is a good indicator of relative frequency of use.

"Oxford comma" 641,000 hits

"serial comma" 147,000 hits

"Harvard comma" 8,300 hits Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Since no on has responded so far, let me ask if there is any objection to moving this article to 'Oxford comma'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I find "serial comma" more neutral, since "Oxford comma" is asscociated with a position that the serial comma belongs there. --Boson (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that 'neutral' has any relevance for article titles. We should use the term by which the subject is most widely known. If that were "Martin Hogbin's comma" that would be the name that we should use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, "serial comma" seems to be more common in (Google) books:

• http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Oxford+comma%2Cserial+comma&year_start=1930&year_end=2012

--Boson (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have got your search wrong. You seem to be searching for 'serial OR comma' vs 'Oxford OR comma'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Are you familiar with the Google Ngram Viewer syntax?

If you search Google Books and Google Scholar, you should find that "serial comma" occurs more than twice as frequently as "Oxford comma".

--Boson (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and I accept this is a not a particularly meaningful metric), the present article "Serial comma" gets about 82,000 views a month, of which only 2,800 come via the "Oxford comma" redirect, and 150 via the "Harvard comma" redirect. GrindtXX (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the Google result, I cannot believe that 82,000 users search for 'serial comma'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would object to the proposed move. No time to do any detailed investigation just now, but serial comma seems more of a technical and therefore proper name, whereas Oxford comma is just a nickname. Serial comma is also more neutral, and does not ally the practice with any particular place/publisher/side of the Atlantic. I'm open to persuasion, but it's going to take more than (i.e. something completely other than) crude google-counts to persuade me. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Source for statements about Cambridge house style and standard British usage

The cited source (Butcher's, p.156) actually states:

"A comma should be consistently omitted or included before the final 'and' or 'or' in lists of three or more items.

red, white and blue ... red, white, and blue

If the author's usual style is to omit the comma, an exception should of course be made if the sentence is a complex one . . ."

--Boson (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Creating ambiguity" section

With reference to this edit. Please don't just delete this material. Maybe it does need a reference or two, but it is no more "unreferenced" than the "Resolving ambiguity" section. This article must retain balance, and refrain from pushing the "pro" or "anti" serial comma line. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree with these comments. The section has in fact been there since 2007 with little change and no challenges, and has only become contentious now because it was initially deleted by somebody who appears not to have read it properly. The appropriate place for a reference, if anyone can dig one out, would probably be at the phrase "The comma may introduce ambiguity" in the Arguments for and against section, where the argument is exceptional in not being referenced. GrindtXX (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

wp:burden is a guideline, and is quite clear in this regard. It states:

"Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article".

It matters not if uncited material has been in an article for a long time. The same as it matters not if an article at AfD has existed a long time. The material is uncited, is original research as it stands, and has been challenged. It is a violation of wikipedia guidelines to restore it without an inline citation that directly supports it. If you have such a citation to provide, feel free to provide it and add back any directly supported text. We don't re-add challenged original research because we like it. And the same goes for any other text in the article that is uncited -- feel free to challenge and remove it.

And please -- where the wp guideline requires that the material not be re-added after it has been challenged, without an appropriate RS ref, please to not edit war by restoring it in direct contravention of policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the material. Please do not delete it again without discussion. The section on "Creating ambiguity" is no more unreferenced than most of the rest of the article. The preceding section on "Resolving ambiguity" has a couple of references, but neither of them addresses the argument, they are just sources for the quotes that are used as material for analysis. The following section ("Unresolved ambiguity") has a single reference, which again is just a source for the quote that is analysed. The whole "ambiguity" section, with its three subsections, is in effect original research. By taking out just one of the three subsections out you are unbalancing the article and turning it into a broadcast on behalf of the serial comma - and it is not the function of Wikipedia to advocate for or against. The fact is that some writers and style guides do use serial commas, and some don't, and this article must take a neutral stance, simply presenting the facts. Either this subsection should remain, or the whole "Ambiguity" section should be deleted. Deleting the lot might be more in accord with the "rules", but it would be a much poorer article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I urge you to self-revert, or else this should go to a noticeboard. You are edit-warring, in direct contravention of a wp guideline. It has been pointed out to you, and you continue to edit war. I'm happy for any other unreferenced challenged material to be deleted as well. But this is uncited, challenged, clearly OR as it stands, and you have repeatedly restored it without inline citations.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of edit-warring, and stop lecturing me. I am not edit-warring. I am tying to improve the article. How do you respond to the points I make above? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How else shall I describe it? You are blatantly and repeatedly violating wp:burden. You are repeatedly restoring uncited challenged material. Blatant OR. You have been pointed to the wp:burden guideline. You have been told that there is not an exception in the guideline for the reasons you would like to keep it: a) that it has existed, uncited, for some time; and b) that there is other uncited material (which I encourage you if you wish to challenge it to delete). That is poster-child edit warring. Against policy. You are not allowed to edit war, blatantly against policy, because your intent is to (in your subjective opinion "improve the article". If you think your view of what is "improving the article" allows you to edit in direct contravention of wp guidelines, then perhaps we should bring this to a noticeboard. I've discussed the matter with you repeatedly here, in edit summaries, and on your talkpage -- and you simply continue to restore uncited material in direct contravention of wp:burden.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Epee, if you're going to quote WP:BURDEN as your reasoning, I urge you to actually follow the guideline you are quoting: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Given that multiple sections refer to the example you have removed, it strikes me as entirely within reason that you leave the sections in the article while the issue is discussed. As for edit-warring, I will note only that multiple editors have restored the section, while only you have insisted on its deletion. Who is actually edit-warring? :) What is most important is the long-term state of the article, not that you get your way in the short term.... -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am following wp:burden. I considered adding a citation needed tag. I decided not to do so. It is not needed -- interested parties can find the text, are aware of its deletion, and have had -- as pointed out above -- ample time already to add refs to the completely uncited material.

The long-term state of the article will be either that the material will be restored with inline citations. Or it will not be restored.

WP:Burden makes it clear that: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Obviously, the material has been challenged. Obviously, it was restored without the requisite inline citations. In direct violation of the guideline. That's not considered acceptable. No rationale that provides an exemption from following wp guidelines has been supplied.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

But it's not so simple. The multiple sections on "ambiguity" rely on the extended example with Ayn Rand. Deleting only the "creating ambiguity" section violates WP:NPOV by favoring the serial comma. Perhaps all the subsections need to go, perhaps they need to stay, perhaps they can be effectively referenced; in any case, deleting only one subsection harms the article in the short term, while discussion is ongoing.

And as for "ample time" to find a reference, the article's history indicates to me that this concern is only a day and a half old. That's hardly enough time to track down a print reference on a weekend. While you are trying to follow the letter of the guideline, I believe you are violating its spirit, which is a judgment call—which I tried to express by quoting WP:BURDEN earlier: "Whether and how quickly this [removal of article text] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article". In this case, removing the text—repeatedly and over multiple editors' objections—negatively affects the other "ambiguity" subsections and leaves an unbalanced article. Give it a little time, please. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)