Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page views

Inconsistent use of the Oxford comma/unclear parenthetical

The last sentence of "Jurisdiction and legality of content" uses the Oxford comma while the parenthetical in "Not professional advice" appears to omit it. This should be fixed if it's a mistake; if not, someone please tell me what the intended meaning of the parenthetical is. Blippy1998 (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Not done as there isn't a specific actionable edit request here. This section can certainly still be used for discussion. Contextually, these appear to be different - with the later being a non-exclusive list of general examples only. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The latter may be not be an exhaustive list, but that doesn't mean a serial comma is or isn't warranted.
    I've since read through the rest of the article and found this isn't the only case; there are 6 cases of a list of 3 or more items omitting the serial comma and 4 cases of a list of 3 or more items including the serial comma. While MOS:SERIAL suggests either usage is acceptable on Wikipedia, it also says that "[s]erial commas are more helpful the more complex the material," and that jives with their near-universal usage in legal documents, as well as their broad acceptance by style guides; this makes them more appropriate for this article, which is quasi-legal. More importantly, though, MOS:SERIAL states that "[e]ditors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent."
    While obviously this isn't the most important thing ever, for such an important page – particularly since it's a quasi-legal page – we should be as clear as possible, especially in the cases where it is ambiguous. I am not 100% certain, and I imagine other users would be confused, too, whether the parenthetical in the "Not professional advice" section refers to "financial or risk management advice" as one unit or "financial advice" as well as "risk management advice" as two separate units. That ambiguity is a bad look for a page like this, and was basically the impetus for me raising this concern. I strongly suspect it means the latter (two separate types of advice) and simply lacks the serial comma – as the former does not make much sense, particularly with the structure of the rest of the list – but I'm not 100% sure, and it should be made clear.
    Thus, I propose adding the serial comma to all places where it's absent. Alternatively, as a second-best option, we could remove the serial comma from all places it is present.
    Option 1 (preferred)
    • "complete, accurate or reliable information" becomes "complete, accurate, or reliable information"
    • "contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else" becomes "contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else"
    • "the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, the individual Wikipedia contributors, any project administrators, sysops or anyone else" becomes "the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, the individual Wikipedia contributors, any project administrators, sysops, or anyone else"
    • "agents, members, organizers or other users" becomes "agents, members, organizers, or other users"
    • "change, edit, modify or remove" becomes "change, edit, modify, or remove"
    • "medical, legal, financial or risk management" becomes "medical, legal, financial, or risk management"
    Option 2 (less-preferred)
    • "changed, vandalized, or altered" becomes "changed, vandalized or altered"
    • "Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, or similar rights" becomes "Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights or similar rights"
    • "mentioned, used, or cited" becomes "mentioned, used or cited"
    • "use, reproduce, or republish" becomes "use, reproduce or republish"
    Blippy1998 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Blippy1998@Xaosflux I've gone and done this. They all seem to fit the bill, and I didn't see any other instances. I'll also note that, nearly one year ago, Oshwah did a couple of other instances. Happy to continue the discussion if anyone feels I've short-circuited. Thanks for the detail, Blippy. ~ Amory (utc) 14:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Amorymeltzer thanks, I had no objection other than the lack of a specific edit ready to go initially. 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) — xaosflux Talk 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Amorymeltzer @Xaosflux Looks good, thanks! Blippy1998 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]