Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus". Kind regards Ziko
Hoi, When you talk about the wikipedia, it indicate in my appreciation this authoritative instance. There is no such thing as *the* authoritative Wikipedia. While many consider the English Wikipedia as such, it is very much the German Wikipedia that pioneered the use of Flagged Revision, it is the Serbian and Chinese Wikipedias who show the way on support for multiple scripts.
There is Wikipedia, the multi lingual project that provides encyclopaedic information. Thanks, GerardM
2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus". Kind regards Ziko
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus". Kind regards Ziko
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
In english you would frequently say Britannica with a "the". "The Wikipedia" would only come up in contexts like "the wikipedia encyclopedia..." which is about the only context I can think of where you would see "the Encarta" show up.
2009/6/27 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus".
We do indeed say "I looked it up in the Encyclopedia Britannica", but we also say "I looked it up in Encarta" or "I looked it up in Whitaker's". Whether or not something gets an initial article is a bit erratic, on the whole...
(Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be wrong)
For what it's worth, I've noticed that "the Wikipedia" is becoming more common, but more among third parties than among people associated with the project.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
(Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be wrong)
I don't have a problem with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica". In fact, after consideration, I'd say adding in "the" would be technically incorrect. Looking at britannica.com, EB consistently refers to itself without "the" in the beginning.
Now look at www.cia.gov. Seems to be no rhyme or reason to the use or nonuse of "the" when the CIA refers to themselves. "About CIA", "History of the CIA", "Offices of CIA", "Contact CIA". "To accomplish its mission, the CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis..." They must have used Intellipedia to create that paragraph.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
(Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be wrong)
I don't have a problem with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica". In fact, after consideration, I'd say adding in "the" would be technically incorrect. Looking at britannica.com, EB consistently refers to itself without "the" in the beginning.
I'm sure there are quite a few other examples. The only one that comes to mind, though, is "Best Damn Sports Show Period", and that one is treated inconsistently even by the official websites.
2009/6/27 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
(Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word - we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be wrong)
I don't have a problem with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia Britannica". In fact, after consideration, I'd say adding in "the" would be technically incorrect. Looking at britannica.com, EB consistently refers to itself without "the" in the beginning.
Interesting. I am inclined to take my lead from the organisation itself for things like this, so perhaps I should change my speech.
Now look at www.cia.gov. Seems to be no rhyme or reason to the use or nonuse of "the" when the CIA refers to themselves. "About CIA", "History of the CIA", "Offices of CIA", "Contact CIA". "To accomplish its mission, the CIA engages in research, development, and deployment of high-leverage technology for intelligence purposes. As a separate agency, CIA serves as an independent source of analysis..." They must have used Intellipedia to create that paragraph.
I hate inconsistency like that. What kind of major organisation doesn't have a style guide detailing how its name should be used?
I've always assumed it's because websites are locations... not things.
You don't say "go to the google" or "go to the wikipedia" for the same reason you do not say "go to the new york" or "go to the london"
-- Eddie A. Tejeda
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.comwrote:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus". Kind regards Ziko
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus".
Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular case may indicate a difference between British and American English here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia" and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
--Michael Snow
Let's just cut to the point; it's pretty much the same reason we don't abbreviate as wiki; just thinking about somebody calling Wikipedia "the Wikipedia" makes my head hurt... --Unionhawk
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus".
Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular case may indicate a difference between British and American English here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia" and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/27 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus".
Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular case may indicate a difference between British and American English here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia" and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
I agree with you, and I speak British English. I would say "the Encyclopaedia Britannica" (NB. the middle word has two a's. As suggested by the final word, it is (originally) a British thing, so takes the British spelling, which has two a's [or an "æ" if you want to be pedantic].). I would, however, say "Britannica" not "the Britannica".
When I look into Duden Die Grammatik, this authoritative reference work about German grammar says that proper names (Angela, Berlin, Christmas) don't get an article: "Hamburg liegt an der Elbe." But it mentions many exceptions, like for rivers who actually do get an article (such as "die Elbe"). An article you use also for institutions ("die UNO") and works ("der Wallenstein", "das Ave Verum"). So what is "Wikipedia", an institution, a work, a proper name? In German texts I find a lot of inconsequences, sometimes in one sentence there is "die Wikipedia" an then again "Wikipedia". I believed that that has to do with the context: "I am registered at Wikipedia" (institution), and "I have written something in the Wikipedia" (work). But this does not fit with my actual findings. Then I thought that "Wikipedia" without article is an anglicism, but it seems not to be that easy, too. What else do we compare (the) Wikipedia with, except for other encyclopedias? A web site like Google? A social movement like Greenpeace? And how about "Wikimedia"? In a short corpus I studied the reporter said "Wikimedia e.V." in German, although I say "die Wikimedia". In English, is it "the Wikimedia"? "The Foundation"? "The Wikimedia Foundation"? Kind regards, your confused Ziko
2009/6/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/6/27 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus".
Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular case may indicate a difference between British and American English here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia" and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
I agree with you, and I speak British English. I would say "the Encyclopaedia Britannica" (NB. the middle word has two a's. As suggested by the final word, it is (originally) a British thing, so takes the British spelling, which has two a's [or an "æ" if you want to be pedantic].). I would, however, say "Britannica" not "the Britannica".
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"Wikipedia" and "the Foundation" sounds right to me. When in doubt, if it sounds right, it probably is. German grammar, I can't help you... Dieser Benutzer *hat keine Deutschkenntnissehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_de *.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.comwrote:
When I look into Duden Die Grammatik, this authoritative reference work about German grammar says that proper names (Angela, Berlin, Christmas) don't get an article: "Hamburg liegt an der Elbe." But it mentions many exceptions, like for rivers who actually do get an article (such as "die Elbe"). An article you use also for institutions ("die UNO") and works ("der Wallenstein", "das Ave Verum"). So what is "Wikipedia", an institution, a work, a proper name? In German texts I find a lot of inconsequences, sometimes in one sentence there is "die Wikipedia" an then again "Wikipedia". I believed that that has to do with the context: "I am registered at Wikipedia" (institution), and "I have written something in the Wikipedia" (work). But this does not fit with my actual findings. Then I thought that "Wikipedia" without article is an anglicism, but it seems not to be that easy, too. What else do we compare (the) Wikipedia with, except for other encyclopedias? A web site like Google? A social movement like Greenpeace? And how about "Wikimedia"? In a short corpus I studied the reporter said "Wikimedia e.V." in German, although I say "die Wikimedia". In English, is it "the Wikimedia"? "The Foundation"? "The Wikimedia Foundation"? Kind regards, your confused Ziko
2009/6/27 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/6/27 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
Hello, Could someone explain to me why "Wikipedia" is without definite article? In English you say "the Britannica", so why not "the Wikipedia"? I am wondering that also in German Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians tend to drop the article, although we say "der Brockhaus".
Actually, singular proper nouns commonly do not take the definite article in English. I would not say "the Britannica" anymore than I would say "the Wikipedia" (or, as noted, "the Encarta"). This particular case may indicate a difference between British and American English here, I'm guessing from the other comments.
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns. Thus, I might refer to "the Encyclopedia Britannica" because it's "the encyclopedia" and "Britannica" identifies which encyclopedia I mean.
I agree with you, and I speak British English. I would say "the Encyclopaedia Britannica" (NB. the middle word has two a's. As suggested by the final word, it is (originally) a British thing, so takes the British spelling, which has two a's [or an "æ" if you want to be pedantic].). I would, however, say "Britannica" not "the Britannica".
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/27 Unionhawk unionhawk.sitemod@gmail.com:
"Wikipedia" and "the Foundation" sounds right to me. When in doubt, if it sounds right, it probably is. German grammar, I can't help you... Dieser Benutzer *hat keine Deutschkenntnissehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_de *.
"The Foundation" is an interesting one. I'm never sure if it should have a capital 'F' or not. The WMF gives it one, so I do too, but it depends on whether you consider "Foundation" to be an abbreviation of "Wikimedia Foundation" (so has a capital letter) or if you consider it just be a regular noun that describes what the WMF is (so has a lower-case letter).
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns.
I would also use the definite article if I were referring to a specific language's Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia", "the Swahili Wikipedia", et al. - instead of to the Wikipedia project in general.
As for referring to Wikimedia, in English one would say "the Wikimedia Foundation" since "Wikimedia" clarifies which foundation we're talking about. If the name didn't use the word "foundation" - if it were "Wikimedia Earth" or "Wikimedia United" - then the definite article would not be necessary.
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an article.
"Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are "The English Wikipedia", "the Wikipedia cabal", "the print Wikipedia 'Wikipedia:' namespace pages", and "the Wikimedia Foundation".
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sj/wikipedia-the-history-of-a-name/
SJ
ps - I am confused by the first sentence on wikimedia.org [what does 'Wikimedia' mean there?], and the footer of wikimediafoundation says "About Wikimedia Foundation" -- missing an article.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jim Redmondjim@scrubnugget.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
There are some situations where you would use the definite article for singular proper nouns, such as with some geographical names, or when the name is actually a combination of common and proper nouns.
I would also use the definite article if I were referring to a specific language's Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia", "the Swahili Wikipedia", et al. - instead of to the Wikipedia project in general.
As for referring to Wikimedia, in English one would say "the Wikimedia Foundation" since "Wikimedia" clarifies which foundation we're talking about. If the name didn't use the word "foundation" - if it were "Wikimedia Earth" or "Wikimedia United" - then the definite article would not be necessary.
-- Jim Redmond jim@scrubnugget.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
ps - I am confused by the first sentence on wikimedia.org [what does 'Wikimedia' mean there?], and the footer of wikimediafoundation says "About Wikimedia Foundation" -- missing an article.
Well, the name of the foundation is "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", not "The Wikimedia Foundation" or "Wikimedia".
"The Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor does not collect or send any personal, identifiable data to *Microsoft Corporation* or third parties." ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/upgrade-advisor.aspx) No "the".
2009/6/28 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun. It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/28 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun. It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc.
Nonsense -- Wikimedia is a proper (and trademarked) name. There are lots of parts of Wikimedia, and that's generally how it's used -- e.g. "the Wikimedia community" -- but that's no different than saying "the Microsoft developer community." That common usage doesn't mean that Microsoft is not also a proper name!
One of the most confusing parts of all of this is the fact that "the Wikipedia" is incorrect, but "the English Wikipedia" is correct. SJ explained why better than I can.
-- phoebe
Okay, I have to say that this whole thread makes us all look a little silly. Let it be known everlastingly that *this*http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/google_launches_the_googleis why we don't say "the Wikipedia."'
Sheesh.
Steven
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/28 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
As far as I'm concerned "Wikimedia" doesn't exist as a proper noun. It's just an adjective: "the Wikimedia Foundation", "the Wikimedia movement", "the Wikimedia projects", "the Wikimedia community" etc.
Nonsense -- Wikimedia is a proper (and trademarked) name. There are lots of parts of Wikimedia, and that's generally how it's used -- e.g. "the Wikimedia community" -- but that's no different than saying "the Microsoft developer community." That common usage doesn't mean that Microsoft is not also a proper name!
One of the most confusing parts of all of this is the fact that "the Wikipedia" is incorrect, but "the English Wikipedia" is correct. SJ explained why better than I can.
-- phoebe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an article.
"Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are "The English Wikipedia", "the Wikipedia cabal", "the print Wikipedia 'Wikipedia:' namespace pages", and "the Wikimedia Foundation".
A bit late on this, but I notice that [[en:Encyclopædia Britannica]] consistently refers to that encyclopedia as "the Britannica". Given that, I can hardly fault the average non-Wikipedian for being confused as to why it's not, in a parallel way, "the Wikipedia"; I imagine Britannica's dominance has conditioned a good many people to think that "the _Encyclopedianame_" is the proper way to refer to encyclopedias.
I suspect this is some sort of archaic grammar being held over in Britannica's case?
-Mark
Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum. I do see people running wikis of any sort on their own or their company site, with a comment that they have 'set up their own wikipedia'. This would be consistent with calling the original Project 'the' Wikipedia.
Yes, it's somewhat archaic if not self-important. WP has become the largest human collaboration of all time, so it's not for lack of transcendence... but it doesn't sound right to me. [On the other hand, I'm having a hard time thinking of a social or practical movement whose name doesn't have a 'the' in it.]
SJ
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Deliriumdelirium@hackish.org wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikipedia does not take an article, nor does Wikimedia.
When combined with an adjective modifying the project name, or a common noun modified by the name, the compound noun does take an article.
"Wikimedia is a non-profit charitable corporation." is correct; so are "The English Wikipedia", "the Wikipedia cabal", "the print Wikipedia 'Wikipedia:' namespace pages", and "the Wikimedia Foundation".
A bit late on this, but I notice that [[en:Encyclopædia Britannica]] consistently refers to that encyclopedia as "the Britannica". Given that, I can hardly fault the average non-Wikipedian for being confused as to why it's not, in a parallel way, "the Wikipedia"; I imagine Britannica's dominance has conditioned a good many people to think that "the _Encyclopedianame_" is the proper way to refer to encyclopedias.
I suspect this is some sort of archaic grammar being held over in Britannica's case?
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/7/7 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum. I do see people running wikis of any sort on their own or their company site, with a comment that they have 'set up their own wikipedia'. This would be consistent with calling the original Project 'the' Wikipedia.
That's common usage, which we're trying to drive back out by pointing out that's a trademark and "wiki" is the generic term ;-)
Of course, then you have people using "wiki" to mean "Wkipedia" ...
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org