446:. You seem to be quite educated on the subject. From what you are saying, it sounds as if there is no consensus regarding spaces and ellipsis among grammarians and linguists. However, I am wondering if there is some sort of guideline here on Knowledge to encourage consistency among articles as it relates to this issue (something one might find in the MOS). For instance, Knowledge has blanket policies regarding capitalization in articles titles no matter what the networks, studios or trade magazines say as can be seen here
81:
22:
71:
53:
475:
Hey, I did a lot of the more recent work on the other wiki page for theres johnny. I am a new editor (i just joined 4 days ago, after seeing the original theres johnny page to be a stub). I'm sorry if i made some mistakes. Regarding the spelling of the show, I simply added on to the page that already
191:. The first article is not written in a grammatically correct manner consistent with Knowledge naming conventions or in the manner that NBCUniversal has expressed it is to be written. Had I known that the other article already existed, I would have moved it to the correct title before rewriting it. –
530:
you are quite a knowledgable editor with a strong grasp of
Knowledge policy and the Manual of Style. What do you suggest the next step is here? How should all proceed? Should one just be bold and do as you said above? BTW, do you have any insight into the use of spaces and ellipsis as it relates to
521:
Just so it is clear. This article was created accidentaly in the sense that I did not realize that an article for the series already existed. I typed the title of the series into my sandbox without the space and when a redlink came up I went ahead and created the article. I can't say that I've ever
427:
version is acceptable under either the
Chicago or AP style guide, as both require spaces before and after the ellipsis. However, the University of Oxford Style Guide calls for a space only afterward, when the ellipsis is used to indicate a pause (which is clearly the case here.)
588:
Nat, I don't know if you saw but I went ahead and did it anyway since I noticed it was essentially already happening. Wish I saw your above note before I did though as I made the bonehead move of not including where the text came from. Not sure how to rectify that now... –
476:
existed, i'm not exactly sure what is correct. I've also accidently just uploaded another title card because I didn't see you had uploaded one already. I'm assuming you are working on merging the two pages? or should i? let me know if you need anything.
401:
Seriously, I've done quite a bit of editing on television-related articles and therefore read through my share of sources. Never before have I seen such inconsistency. But, wow, I don't even know what to say about IndieWire. That's another level. –
522:
made this error before and certainly have no intention of it happening again in the future. Once I realized that their were now two articles covering the same topic, I tried to use my limited knowledge to rectify the situation.
450:. I suppose that is what trying to be decided here. As it stands now in the discussion, multiple sources write the title differently and, as you have pointed out, there is inconsistency among various grammar guides as well. –
557:
old). I still dont know whats the correct spelling for the show name, but I thought I'd move the info on the new page to the old page so that anyone reading the article in the meantime will receive more information.
573:
Make sure that when you do so, the edit summary includes a mention that you are copying it from the other article; that goes to proper crediting and history-tracking needed to handle the content licenses.
225:
494:- There are basic procedural errors here. The other article has existed since April while this was only created recently and been mainly edited by only one person on one day. What
263:
144:
There already exists an article for this show. If there are additions to be made, they should be there. If there's reason to move it, it should be brought up for discussion. --
250:
Fair point about the NBCUniversal claim. I thought I had read that in one of the articles. As far as consistency among various sources, these sources include the space (
347:
272:
631:
274:
636:
256:
416:
As for your earlier claim that one is "grammatical" and the other not, that's not really the case. This is a matter for style, not grammar... and the
287:
Seeso posted an announcement regarding the service's closure on their official
Facebook page on August 9, 2017 where they spelled it with no spaces (
641:
498:
happen is content from this article be merged into the original and then, if there is concern about the name, then suggest a move to this title. --
536:
254:
103:
269:
603:
You can add a note to the talk page. Having said that, it doesn't seem that vital since it was your own text that you were moving. --
290:
206:
I don't see any NBCUniversal source listed on the article. I see a variety of sources, which are inconsistent in the name, but with
360:
352:
447:
94:
58:
356:
380:
532:
33:
258:
251:
337:
21:
563:
510:
481:
39:
559:
477:
608:
579:
433:
392:
237:
215:
161:
Fair enough, I concede that I should have gone ahead and initiated a discussion. Please see below. –
149:
353:
indywire uses both one space and no space repeatedly in same article, for copyediting is a dead art
207:
184:
138:
332:
188:
288:
260:
594:
544:
525:
499:
455:
407:
320:
297:
196:
166:
86:
232:, with the space after the ellipsis, both in the title and the body of the press release. --
276:
153:
604:
575:
443:
429:
388:
233:
211:
145:
99:
387:
Thus we prove that, ummm, the folks at
Indiewire are an enemy to the public, I think. --
370:
266:
625:
80:
590:
540:
451:
403:
316:
293:
192:
162:
342:
102:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
556:
Since I had an afternoon of spare time, I've merged the two articles (new-: -->
375:
612:
598:
583:
567:
548:
516:
485:
459:
437:
411:
396:
348:
Deadline uses two spaces in header... and no ellipsis in body of article, here
324:
301:
241:
219:
200:
170:
76:
537:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject
Television#The Use of Ellipsis in Article Titles
98:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about
271:) writes the title with two spaces and another three articles/webpages (
210:
being the most common. It is also most in line with the title card. --
70:
52:
313:
533:
Knowledge talk:Article titles#The Use of
Ellipsis in Article Titles
15:
278:) include mentions with two spaces and mentions without any.
531:
article titles and the MOS? I posed the question here (
448:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters
329:Checking the sources for the extant article:
8:
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
49:
226:here is an NBCUniversal press release.
338:ID10T uses no spaces (but four dots.)
92:This redirect is within the scope of
19:
7:
38:It is of interest to the following
632:Redirect-Class television articles
333:Hollywood Reporter uses two spaces
312:Also, Hulu uses no spaces as well
14:
637:NA-importance television articles
357:consistently uses one space here
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Television
79:
69:
51:
20:
642:WikiProject Television articles
539:) looking for more guidance. –
115:Template:WikiProject Television
1:
253:) and these sources do not (
613:03:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
599:03:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
584:03:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
568:02:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
549:02:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
517:02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
486:00:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
460:02:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
442:Thank you for that insight
438:02:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
412:04:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
397:23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
325:23:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
302:23:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
242:23:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
220:23:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
201:22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
171:22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
154:22:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
658:
371:Rotten Tomatoes: one space
136:
64:
46:
423:guides differ greatly.
376:Metacritic - one space
95:WikiProject Television
381:LA Times, one space
343:IMDb uses one space
118:television articles
104:join the discussion
100:television programs
208:There's... Johnny!
185:There's... Johnny!
139:There's... Johnny!
34:content assessment
361:and no space here
268:). This article (
189:There's...Johnny!
134:
133:
130:
129:
126:
125:
87:Television portal
649:
529:
506:
503:
230:THERE’S… JOHNNY!
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
16:
657:
656:
652:
651:
650:
648:
647:
646:
622:
621:
523:
513:
504:
501:
187:be merged into
183:I propose that
181:
179:Merger proposal
142:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
12:
11:
5:
655:
653:
645:
644:
639:
634:
624:
623:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
554:
553:
552:
551:
511:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
384:
383:
378:
373:
367:
366:
365:
364:
350:
345:
340:
335:
307:
306:
305:
304:
282:
281:
280:
279:
245:
244:
222:
180:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
141:
135:
132:
131:
128:
127:
124:
123:
121:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
654:
643:
640:
638:
635:
633:
630:
629:
627:
614:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
527:
520:
519:
518:
514:
508:
507:
497:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
426:
422:
419:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
330:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
299:
295:
291:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
277:
275:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
259:
257:
255:
252:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
178:
172:
168:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
147:
140:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
23:
18:
17:
560:MehAlexander
555:
535:) and here (
526:AussieLegend
500:
495:
491:
478:MehAlexander
474:
424:
420:
417:
229:
182:
143:
93:
40:WikiProjects
29:
605:Nat Gertler
576:Nat Gertler
430:Nat Gertler
389:Nat Gertler
234:Nat Gertler
212:Nat Gertler
146:Nat Gertler
137:Merge into
626:Categories
444:NatGertler
109:Television
59:Television
30:redirect
591:BoogerD
541:BoogerD
452:BoogerD
425:Neither
418:grammar
404:BoogerD
317:BoogerD
294:BoogerD
193:BoogerD
163:BoogerD
505:Legend
502:Aussie
496:should
492:Oppose
355:, but
36:scale.
421:style
292:). –
228:It's
28:This
609:talk
595:talk
580:talk
564:talk
545:talk
482:talk
456:talk
434:talk
408:talk
393:talk
321:talk
315:. –
298:talk
238:talk
224:And
216:talk
197:talk
167:talk
150:talk
628::
611:)
597:)
582:)
574:--
566:)
547:)
515:)
484:)
458:)
436:)
428:--
410:)
395:)
359:,
323:)
300:)
265:,
262:,
240:)
218:)
199:)
169:)
152:)
607:(
593:(
578:(
562:(
543:(
528::
524:@
512:✉
509:(
480:(
454:(
432:(
406:(
391:(
363:.
319:(
296:(
236:(
214:(
195:(
165:(
148:(
106:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
