Talk:Hades' Bident

This is the discussion page for Hades' Bident. Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Hades's vs Hades'

I know it’s awkward for a lot of people and goes against what most have been taught but the game uses Hades's. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:47, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

Save for memory names, the wiki chooses to omit the other s. Sadelyrate (siniath) 13:39, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

That seems weird and is not what the MoS states. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 13:53, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

Jasca and Cyfiero did discussed this on Discord, so you can check with them. XOdeyssusx (talk) 13:58, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

All I can tell you is what Jasca Ducato told me, when I asked them about it: "Crimson, Sol, Sima and I discussed this previously and agreed that dropping the possessive S is the best route forward (and is consistent with the wiki's practice to date) since it's only a grammatical change, and doesn't change the meaning of the subject name itself. The only exception to this is genetic memories, where we'll keep the possessive S if there is one present." Sadelyrate (siniath) 14:05, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 14:09, November 11, 2018 (UTC)

The discussion as Jasca reported is not exactly as I remember it though I would have to double-check the logs. As I recall, we did all agree that dropping the possessive ⟨s⟩ in the case of names such as Socrates, Alexios, Hades, etc. (which end in sibilants that are either /z/ or approach /z/) is proper. What was in disagreement was whether or not this should also be the case with certain singular nouns and names, such as boss, where the possessive ⟨s⟩ needs to be articulated in its possessive form to be understood as being inflected for possession. However, we did not address this contention and left it ambiguous, something that was possible because the cases we looked at at the time all involved names where the possessive ⟨s⟩ should be dropped either way. At the same time, we also established the convention that definitely still holds at the moment which is that grammatical changes to names are fine even if they deviate with Ubisoft's usage.

Actually, we had already previously established in the manual of style that omission of the possessive ⟨s⟩ in singular nouns ending in an ⟨s⟩ is conditional. Changes to policy should not be arbitrarily made by consensus among a few users in an ad hoc session on a supplementary chat service. An exception can be made when there is need of an expedient solution to a matter that has not yet been settled (e.g. the convention on grammatical corrections to names).

To be open and honest, the aforementioned ambiguity and the convention on allowing grammatical changes to names was such that it allowed Jasca to be convinced that a definitive consensus had been reached that the possessive ⟨s⟩ should always be dropped in every case, as he himself held the conviction that this is an indisputable grammar rule. In fact, it is not because various manuals of style around the world maintain the inclusion of the possessive ⟨s⟩ in singular nouns ending in an ⟨s⟩. On my end, the ambiguity allowed me to sidestep yet another argument regarding formulating policy changes to the manual of style without a wider, formal discussion with the community on the wiki itself.

I know this seems convoluted, but this is how I remember it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 13:38, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

But how should we move forward from now. Because the MoS basically states it's up to how the speaker pronounces the word but that varies from speaker to speaker. As stated I even pronounce the extra s on the examples you provided above. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 07:34, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

If a policy has been established in the MoS, the matter has already been settled. An amendment to it would need to be formally proposed and then voted upon. I really want to dispel this illusion in the past year that our policies are just temporary guidelines such that a ressolution is still pending. If it has been codified, the matter has already been settled, and so the way forward is to abide by it unless you strongly desire an amendment. With that having been said, I'm actually still quite confused what your personal position on the matter is. When I checked your old message to me from way back, it seems that you were against the possessive ⟨s⟩, but now it seems that you are supportive of it without exceptions? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:52, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

No I was for it. I was the one that had been using it and getting it corrected afterwards. But my biggest issue is that I don't feel the MoS addresses it sufficiently. "unless doing so makes the noun awkward to pronounce with an extra sibilant". I don't find it awkward so for me I should be adding the s to well all singular nouns. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 08:07, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay for us to just reword it for clarity. Also pardon me if I came across strong. I was debating myself for many moments about whether it was necessary to emphasize the importance of recognizing that under normal circumstances, what has been codified as policy means that a matter was already settled. On several occasions in the past, Jasca had misled contributors as to formatting styles and policies, and I am still wary of the atmosphere that has produced in users thinking that a moderator's words on a whim are more authoritative than codified policy on a document. So I wanted to be extra clear on this.

With that having been said, of course if you really have strong objections and wish to amend the formatting policy, you are welcome to speak your mind on it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:57, October 27, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the the policy should be less ambiguous on this topic. I have four suggestions. Never use 's after singular s, always use 's after singular s, never use 's after singular s except when previously used in canon material, always use 's after singular s except when previously not used in canon material. I listed those in order of least to most preferable to me but all are more preferable than the current stance. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 09:42, October 27, 2019 (UTC)