Talk:Serial comma/Archive 1

Miscellaneous

Is this comma used in a list consisting of only two entities?

No. —Steven G. Johnson 19:05, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the ambiguity that serial commas introduce into the example of the bottom paragraph. It would appear that Miss Roberts was considered for three roles, and I don't readily see an alternative interpretation. Maybe I'm just being oblivious? Is there a better example to use? Xanzzibar 02:19, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity is in using the commas to parenthetize "David's mother", implying Marjorie was David's mother. In any case, one shouldn't probably use commas to do that... Dysprosia 02:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The ambiguity is not removed if one omits the serial comma, unless serial commas are forbidden. As long as they are optional, the ambiguity in this counterexample remains. — Jeff Q 02:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is very well-written and clear encyclopedia article. Props to those who did the work. jengod 01:10, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I came to this article thinking it'd be easier than going through the Wikipedia style guide to find out which way Wikipedians did things... but I still don't know. Can Wikipedia be added to the Examples of style guides (whichever one it belongs to)? Of course, by the time anyone reads this, I'll likely find the answer and add it myself... :) Jon the Geek 19:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

As in real life, some Wikipedians use the Oxford comma, some don't. As a general guide, more American WPians use it than don't, and more non-American don't use it that do, but there are plenty of exceptions to this. And vive la différence. Incidentally the Manual of Style's recommendation is not generally supported (only 50% supported keeping it) and is generally ignored by those who are unaccustomed to using it. Personally, I'd recommend omitting the Oxford comma unless using it would help the reader (eg by eliminating ambiguity) or convey some information to the reader (less likely by possible). Kind regards, jguk 19:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Resolving the ambiguity argument

Ambiguities are inherent in language. To determine whether using serial commas is good or not, one could use a bit of statistical processing. It should be fairly straightforward to run an experiment on a large English corpus (e.g. Penn Treebank), and see how often serial commas would create and how often they would remove ambiguity. My suspicion is that they would remove ambiguity way more often.

Inadequate anti-serial-comma arguments

I know folks are trying to create good examples, and I don't have a better one offhand, but

We brought Betty, a cow, and a piano.

is not an example of ambiguity in serial comma use. It's simply bad grammar to put a comma after "Betty" in this sentence. There are not three parallel items that require some use of commas — there are only two. "Betty" is not one of the items being brought. There should be no commas in this sentence, regardless of serial comma practice. I'm sure there are good examples of serial comma ambiguity, but this isn't one. — Jeff Q 13:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me. I just re-read the sentence, and realized that I was thinking of an interpretation that the author apparently did not consider. I think it's because the sentence seems rather artificial. When I saw the words:

we brought Betty a cow and a piano

I was first inclined to read this as bringing a cow and a piano to Betty, not with Betty, and simply assumed the comma after "Betty" was a typographical error, the like of which I see dozen of times every single day, even from supposedly-respectable news organizations. But the author of this example apparently meant it to be read ambiguously as one of the two following:

• we brought Betty, who is a cow, and a piano
• we brought Betty and a cow and a piano

Yes--since we were discussing the last comma in a series. But I can understand the confusion.

that would be resolved if the original sentence omitted the last comma, which would be a serial comma in the last interpretation. Technically, the author's point is correct, but gets lost in the confusion over an unintended (and I think more likely expected) meaning. I think we still need a better example. — Jeff Q 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Confusion should be precluded with:

They went to Oregon with Betty, a cow, and a piano.

Thanks for the feedback.--NathanHawking 17:53, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

How would people feel about this example? "I saw Ann, my sister, and Joe." Factitious 16:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I like the humor in mistaking a lady for a cow--like Rand and God for one's parents. I think I've solved the problem. --NathanHawking 17:53, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

I think Factitious's example seems more ambiguous (in that one is more likely to see a sister who may or may not be named Ann than to go to Oregon with a cow that may or may not be named Betty), and is thus more likely to benefit from serial comma absence. But I have to admit, I also like NathanHawking's example's humor and symmetry with the classic Rand-and-God example. However, my earlier error also made me more conscious of how likely one is to mistake the presence or absence of punctuation as an error by sloppy writers and not as an intentional policy. In the past week, I've corrected at least two Wikipedia article instances of parenthetical-phrase comma use where the second comma was omitted (which is never correct), making it look like an absent serial comma for a list. I'm afraid that, if I saw either example in use without a serial comma, I would not feel that I knew the intended meaning without context. I don't see a direct solution to this; it's just an observation. — Jeff Q 04:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Google "cow named Betty". 18 hits for web. "Cow betty" gives 143 hits. Lots of cows named Betty. Dogs named Fred, too.--NathanHawking 10:00, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Google "sister named Ann" — 277 hits. "Sister ann" gives about 24,700. Far more sisters named Ann. But I still like your example. ☺ By the way, please don't break up my comments, even with blue highlighting. Besides thwarting the admittedly limited Wiki markup, interspersed comments work well in dialogs, but not when three or more parties are involved, especially on a discussion page that new people may be trying to follow months or even years from now. — Jeff Q 14:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of added section

I removed the following:

But the ambiguity of whether "a cow" was a parenthetic expression or a separate member of a list would also arise in speech, unless the speaker used careful intonation. Special punctuation can be used to mimic the necessary careful intonations. For one meaning:

They went to Oregon with Betty; a cow; and a piano.

For the other, one of:

They went to Oregon with Betty (a cow) and a piano.

They went to Oregon with Betty – a cow – and a piano.

Consider: "They went to Oregon with Betty, a housekeeper, and a maidservant."

Reasons as follows:

1. Commas aren't used in speech, and this article is about commas. Disambiguation by intonation is interesting, but doesn't belong in an article about punctuation.
2. The recommended use of semicolons, so far as I can tell, is non-standard.
3. The example sentence at the end essentially repeats the Betty-cow-piano example.

--NathanHawking 20:55, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

I rethought the contributors point about the last sentence and the disambiguation examples, and extracted that to create a final section, showing alternatives to serial commas. --NathanHawking 21:26, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Inaccurate

All of the commas in a series, not just the optional one before the conjunction, are serial commas. The one just before the conjunction is an Oxford comma. Shorne 15:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is one of those cases where usage has triumphed over logic in language. The vast majority of references use "the serial comma" to refer only to the last comma:

"This last comma—the one between the word "and" and the preceding word—is often called the serial comma or the Oxford comma." (deleted reference as it's causing a problem for the spam filter)

"When you are writing about a series of things, the serial comma is necessary before the final 'and.'" [1]

"I stoutly defend the use of the serial comma..." [2]

"Without the serial comma, the example could have numerous meanings." (reference causing problem for spam filter: deleted)

"Serial Comma (also known as the Oxford or Harvard Comma): Even without the final (serial) comma, the sentence is grammatically correct." (spam filter: reference deleted)

In a half-dozen articles I found one exception:

"Except for journalists, all American authorities say to use the final serial comma:" (spam filter: reference deleted)

I don't know if that's enough to justify rewriting the introduction. If you can cite a few more references which chew this bone, though, perhaps clarification would be in order. --NathanHawking 23:18, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Page move

Shorne's right. Oxford comma is the proper name for the last comma in the list - not serial comma. We should move the article to "Oxford comma". jguk 21:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't care what the page is called, assuming proper redirects, but please don't be prescriptive about what is the "proper" name. Wikipedia should merely accurately describe the existing usage(s). —Steven G. Johnson 22:33, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I see someone has been bold and moved this page to Oxford comma despite no consensus on the preference of "Oxford comma" over "serial comma". I see also that the first paragraph was rephrased to fit the new title. However, the entire remainder of the article uses "serial comma" to mean the Oxford comma. I agree that "serial comma" is ambiguous, as it is occasionally (and more logically) used in sense of "one in a series of commas in a list", but this does not justify ignoring its normal and accepted use in the other sense. At the very least, the text should reflect the dual use of the term and be consistent in how it discusses the article subject. We can't ignore the preponderance of the "last comma" use in a variety of style guides, just because the English language doesn't conform to prescriptive logic. Frankly, I'd prefer to move this article back to Serial comma. If the bold editor(s) would prefer this not be done, I urge them to fix the current mess. — Jeff Q 08:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

No evidence at all has been provided to support the claim that the term Oxford comma is somehow more proper, nothing to counter the evidence provided by NathanHawking. To add to this evidence: The Cambridge Guide to English Usage has a redirect to "comma section 3 for serial comma but no redirect for the term Oxford comma. The article comma calls it "(the so called serial comma or series comma) and from that point onward calls it the serial comma. The term Oxford comma does not appear in the article at all. (Does Cambridge hate Oxford that badly?) However in both the Burchfield and the Allen Fowler, in the article comma, this comma is identified as "the so-called 'Oxford comma')" once and not other special name is there given, neither serial comma or series comma. But the quotation marks placed around Oxford comma here suggests an attempt to disavow that is an official or proper name for this comma usage. In the Buchfield Fowler the term appears twice, both times within single quotation marks. This is the only place where I have found Oxford comma given primary usage. For many technical terms there is no single proper name, only competing descriptive names. In such cases, the more common one is preferred in Wikipedia.

If an older usage can be documented, then the information should be added to the article and a note added to the lead paragraph indicating the contemporary usage derives from older usage in which the term applied to any comma in a list. I have found cases of the phrase final serial comma, but this might mean either the last of a number of serial commas or the last comma which is the special serial comma. Jallan 20:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being bold is what Wikipedia's about. I wish more people were bolder:) I haven't had time to research this thoroughly, but "Oxford comma" is by far the more interesting way to refer to it. I must say, however, that looking at an internet search of it, I was surprised at the pure venom expressed by those supporting its use against those who do not adopt it. As Burchfield, quite correctly, reports, both using the Oxford comma and not using the Oxford comma are accepted usage now (although Burchfield does note his personal preference of using the Oxford comma). jguk 23:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS I wouldn't mind Oxford, they give degrees to anyone these days :)

Being bold is good, but it does not release one either from being accurate or from the consequences of one's boldness. And there are now three separate issues being discussed in this section titled Inaccurate:

1. The article title change to Oxford comma, based on logic but not on typical practice.
2. The failure to update more than the introductory paragraph of the article to accomodate the change.
3. The actual use or avoidance of the "Oxford comma".

The second has been resolved. The third is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's please focus on the specific "Oxford comma" vs. "serial comma" issue here.

As far as that goes, whether "Oxford comma" is a more "interesting" label is hardly relevant. The important thing is to label it accurately. From that point of view, both "Oxford" and "Harvard" are more logical, but the evidence cited thus far strongly suggests these latter terms are not the most common practice. However, most of that evidence appears to be coming from folks who prefer "serial comma", which makes sense but could be considered selective research. Can someone quote any unequivocating authoritative source for favoring either "Oxford comma" or "Harvard comma"? If not, this article should be returned to its former title. — Jeff Q 02:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burchfield prefers the term in Fowler. Also, this google test [3] [4] shows just under a 2:1 preference for "Oxford comma". jguk 07:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Searching outside of just UK sites (where one would expect a higher bias toward the Oxford phrasing) shows a preference for serial comma, however (5,810:5,500). The Concise OED redirects the reader to serial comma from Oxford comma, as well. --Xanzzibar 08:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like your search showed no clear usage preference (even though one would expect an American bias as there are disproportionately more American websites). jguk 08:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burchfield's a bit attainted by his use of the phrase "so-called 'Oxford comma'", according to Jallan. On the other hand, websites can be useful for rough ideas, but are hardly authoritative, even when the evidence strongly supports one side. (And I share jguk's suspicion about American bias in overall website content.) Surely there are other British style guides that can shed more light on this debate, on way or another? I'd dig 'em up myself, but my local libraries (not surprisingly, in Virginia) have little in the way of British materials. — Jeff Q 14:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In making my preceding comment, I overlooked Xanzzibar's explicit search of UK sites. Unless jguk wishes to make the argument that most UK websites are run by expatriate Americans, even a slight favoring of "serial comma" over the homegrown "Oxford comma" significantly undermines the argument for the latter. But I maintain that printed British style guides' recommendations would be more meaningful. — Jeff Q 07:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, no. I searched Google at large, which showed the 5% preference for "serial" over "Oxford." Maurreen's search is even more revealing, though. And, as I mentioned above, the OED uses "serial comma" as its main entry, not "Oxford comma," which I think says something.

To get a truly scientific answer about what is most common would probably take more effort than the question is worth. But here's more Google searches:

1. Using all three words ("comma", "oxford", and "serial") gives 5,290 hits.
2. Using "comma", "oxford", and "-serial" gives 116,000 hits.
3. Using "comma", "serial", and "-oxford" gives 202,000 hits.

Further, the expression "serial comma" can be more easily understood by anyone unfamiliar with the expression "Oxford comma" than the reverse. Maurreen 08:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

Changing the article from "Serial comma" to "Oxford comma" is POV. I'm adding the tag. Maurreen 06:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But what a wonderful article name is "Oxford comma", and to have it tagged makes it all the more intriguing! Thincat 16:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ho-hum. I find the term "serial comma" to be highly mis-leading as a term for the description of what this article about; "ante-posterior comma" would be significantly better. Naming it "serial comma" is, indeed, IMO, somewhat POV in and of itself.

James F. (talk) 16:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The confusion is probably caused because the section in comma articles in usage guides deals with the use of commas in a series of terms, including the particular case of 'ante-posterior' comma, which is a type of serial comma but not all serial commas are ante-posterior. I would prefer either 'Harvard comma' or 'Oxford comma', but a bold alternative might be to extend the article to cover the use of commas in lists in general. On the other hand, here is a page suggesting 'serial comma' is a more general term, which raises the question of what is meant by 'general'. Cedders 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the comma is actually termed "Oxford comma", and the common alternative names are also mentioned in the article, are there any objections to removing the POV notice? jguk 20:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No objections. All of the names appear pretty well known. We just have to pick one. Oxford is as good as any other. DJ Clayworth 20:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I object. Let's wait and see if anyone else does also. I also disagree that all the terms are well known. Maurreen 21:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And what is the justification for renaming the article? Maurreen 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also object. Jguk's assertion implies that "Oxford comma" is the official name, and the others mere alternatives. Despite repeated requests for proof of such a claim, he has failed to provide compelling evidence. Others have provided substantive evidence that "serial comma", under which this article was originally titled, is the better-known name. So far, there is more reason to change it back than either to keep it or to remove the POV tag. — Jeff Q 08:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeff Q, I never said it was an official - as with most names of things, there's nothing official about it:) I did say it was actually called the Oxford comma, which it is. It is also actually called Harvard comma and serial comma by some, as the article notes. I'm not sure what this has got to do with a POV tag though. We don't usually put POV tags on something because they are named using the most common British term, rather than the most common American one. Kind regards, jguk 09:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jguk, of course you didn't use the word "official". You merely implied a preference for "Oxford" by using the word "actually" for it and using the term "alternative" for the other names. This is your subtle and rather effective way to press an argument that you have lost repeatedly and yet refuse to give up. Another element of your argument strategy is to make it sound like your oppponents are pressing an American usage over British, as you have once again just done. It is not a British vs. American issue; it is a question of how the term is best known by a majority of English references of all dialects. No one has yet provided a substantive case that most (or even very many) references, British or American (or Canadian, for that matter), prefer the term "Oxford comma" over "serial comma". So far, we've had one respectable citation which itself qualified the term as "so-called 'Oxford comma'", and one very obscure citation. This was countered by numerous citations for "serial comma". (Unfortunately, much of this research has been posted in other discussion pages. However, I'm willing to collect it and summarize it here, if only someone would do a better job on the "Oxford" side of the issue. I'd do it myself, but I haven't found any evidence yet, and I'm probably at a disadvantage because my sources are more American than British.) I'm not saying the jury's in; I'm just saying that the "Oxford comma" proponents have failed thus far to make their case by citations, and are relying on a vocal minority opinion and an abundance of energy to sustain this unproven assertion. If you can prove your point, I'll happily support you. — Jeff Q 21:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The POV tag says only that the neutrality is disputed. If any person disputes it, then it is disputed. If any person wants the tag to stay, it should stay.

Articles are supposed to be named using the most common name overall. The evidence given at least so far indicates that "serial comma" is the most common name.

We don't usually change the names of articles to make them "more interesting", either. Maurreen 14:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Yoghurt. jguk 15:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read it. What is your point? Maurreen 15:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point there was that you were misunderstanding Wikipedia policy (which isn't as simple as articles being titled using the most commonly-used term). But going back to my original question on whether the NPOV tag can be removed (which seems to have rekindled this dormant debate), the NPOV tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." As I understand it, that notice is untrue. It is where the article should be located that is disputed. That's got nothing to do with the neutrality of the article itself. Kind regards, jguk 21:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will clarify: I dispute that the article is neutral. To clarify further: It represents your point of view of what is "proper" and "more interesting". Maurreen 05:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found this page after looking up serial comma. In case it helps, a Google search returns 6,580 for "serial comma," 876 for "Oxford comma," and 429 for "Harvard comma". That's fairly conclusive. If the person who created this article had originally called it Oxford comma, there would be an argument for leaving it as that, but it was started as Serial comma, so there has to be an argument in favor of changing it. Reading through this page, I see no argument, just assertion. In addition, most people who know the term "Oxford comma" will know that it's usually called "serial comma," but users of "serial comma" may never have heard of "Oxford comma." I agree that the page should be changed back to its original title. Slim 13:18, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary. Why would most people who know the term Oxford comma be aware of the more confusing term of serial comma (which sounds as though it refers to all the commas in a series, though it does not)? Anyway, Wikipedia is about encouraging people to read more articles, and Oxford comma (which is the form supported by Fowlers; OUP; Eats, Shoots and Leaves and others) is the sexier name. More people would follow a link to Oxford comma. Let's follow the "obey no rules" rule of Wikipedia:) The name "Oxford comma" is interesting - even a band is named after it [5]. Comments above show it's more interesting - as do many other sites on the internet. Let's go for the fun, interesting version - grammar doesn't have to be dull. :) jguk 19:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does nobody really have anything better to do that this? DJ Clayworth 20:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say your confusion over the term "serial comma" is your own. If you want to find reputable publications that talk about how that term is confusing, then please do. I feel the point here is that you can't simply change the name of an article to reflect what you think is sexy. More people in the world recognize the term "serial comma" than recognize any other name for this — even Cambridge doesn't recognize the term "Oxford comma," so why should people in other countries know about it? (For one example of Cambridge using the term "serial comma,' see page five of [6]) If you want a sexy name, "Harvard comma" sounds just as interesting, but what you're doing is trying to make a political point, and now you've managed to turn a perfectly straightforward article into a POV issue. Slim 22:53, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, and I know this debate has rolled on, I think the article should have been titled "Oxford comma" and redirected from "serial comma". This is not because I think "Oxford comma" is commoner (it isn't) or more correct, but because everyone can agree it is a name for it. The idea of consensus is that everyone can agree. Those who object to serial comma simply do not accept that "serial comma" is a name for the comma in question, whereas those who object to Oxford comma allow that it is a name for it. It seems the most widely acceptable name would be "Oxford comma". Changing the article title to "Oxford comma" is not "POV". I wish people would stop throwing that term around to mean that an editor is using a less widely accepted term or concept. NPOV does not mean "use no POVs". It means "use all POVs".

Maurreen, you are right that we should generally use the most commonly used name. But that isn't written in stone. I'd say that it doesn't merit the aggressive use of tags to make one's point. Dr Zen 03:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changing the article back to "Serial comma"

I would like to change the name back to serial comma. Let me know please if there are objections to this or if anyone concurs. Slim 23:16, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly concur. Maurreen 04:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid getting drawn into further discussions on this and other Manual of Style topics until I've done my research, but I would argue that the article should at least be consistent. As I've said before, the primary term used should match the article title. — Jeff Q 08:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeff, I understand your point. Maybe I misunderstood Slim; I thought she meant changing the article name. Maurreen 15:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's how I understood Slim's comment above, too, but I was reacting to her changing "Oxford" to "serial" within the article first. It looks now like she was merely doing this as part of an effort to change both the text and the title and was temporarily stymied by complications with the latter. — Jeff Q 21:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jeff and Maurreen: temporarily stymied is about right. I tried undoing the redirect, and didn't succeed. I also tried using "move" (to Serial comma) but got a message saying a page of that name already exists. Therefore, I've listed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It looks as though others need to say whether they support or object. If anyone knows of a faster way to do this, please let me know or go ahead and do it yourself (because strictly speaking this isn't a move, it's an unmove). I can't believe that one editor is prepared to cause this much hassle for other people. Slim 22:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. Don't know who, when or how, mind you. :-) Slim 23:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Editing the article

What gets to me is that of all the commentators on this point only two (myself and Jeff Q) have made any sort of positive contribution to the article at all. Is it too much to ask that editors who do not wish to contribute to improving the article do not seek to dictate to those who do? jguk 23:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't change serial back to Oxford. This page is likely to be called serial comma again, because it seems the majority want it that way, and also because that's what most people call it. We should wait another day to see what the consensus is. And the comment about Fowler's is not POV. Fowler's IS regarded as the most authoritative source on British English as the Wikipedia page on Fowler says. Slim 08:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fowler is, Burchfield isn't. Dr Zen 04:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Slim 04:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Fowler's first edition of his Modern English Usage came out in 1926. It's a very good guide to how English was used in the 1920s, but clearly takes no notice of the many developments that the language has undergone since then. Language is living. It changes. Often. To say a book written in 1926 is an authoritative guide to how English is used in 2004 (or 2005) is, I'm afraid, utter nonsense.

Also, the way Fowler's is called authoritative is misleading here. Because of the way it's used, there is an implication that the Oxford comma is, or should be, preferred in British English. That implication goes too far. Burchfield uses the Oxford comma himself, and prefers it. That is true. But most British English writers avoid it, unless it is necessary to have one to avoid an ambiguity. So here, referring to Fowler's as being authoritative is misleading, as it does not recommend the most popular usage. The most popular usage is what is relevant here. jguk 11:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's authoritative so far as anything is, Jon. His general advice and nearly all of his usage notes still hold true. As a baseline for discussion, I'll take Fowler over anything, although much more so in his general remarks. In any case, as Slim notes, it is regarded as authoritative. Whether it ought to be is another question. I'm a descriptivist on the whole and I don't think any "style guide" is likely to be "authoritative" (not the least because as an editor, I work with a different style guide for each person that employs me). I agree that Fowler is I'd go so far as to say wrong on the subject of the Oxford comma. I don't think it was all that common in his day, let alone now. As I've noted elsewhere it is to my knowledge not used at all in the UK, with very few exceptions. I don't care what Burchfield does. The guy's a tool.Dr Zen 22:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Macaroni and cheese

This "ambiguity" simply doesn't exist outside of the USA and those few places elsewhere that use the Oxford comma.

I've added this:

"Some would resolve this ambiguity by using another "and": "Buy bread, bacon and macaroni and cheese"."

Because this is exactly what English schoolchildren are taught! If the last two elements in a list belong together, we add an "and" not a comma. So we write: "The cafe serves burgers, salads and fish and chips". I'm taking it on trust that Americans read "Buy bread, bacon, macaroni and cheese" as ambiguous, but for me at least there is absolutely no ambiguity. "Macaroni" and "cheese" cannot belong together because there is no "and" before macaroni, serial comma or otherwise. The sentence is simply incorrect if it they are meant to be a unit.Dr Zen 03:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know England is smaller than the U.S., but do you really know what the other 49 million people in the country were taught as schoolchildren? There have certainly been heated arguments about what is taught in American schools, but perhaps England is more uniform in its instruction. Far too often, people make arguments as if they know what everyone "knows" from their own upbringing, which turns out not to be as universal as they might think. It would help if you could cite a source or two (e.g., a textbook or common reference) that makes your point.

I do hope you're wrong, though, because your statement borders on the absurd. By definition, the items in a list that uses serial commas (in the more generic sense) must belong together. The ambiguity enters when two of the items have a stronger relationship than the others, in that they are treated as a single unit, like "fish and chips" or "macaroni and cheese". Nevertheless, your point is worth discussing as a possible alternative, and should be noted if this is general practice in England.

However, I don't see how this phrasing disambiguates, because, besides sounding somewhat awkward, it fails to inform someone who doesn't already know the special relationship that there is such a relationship. Why wouldn't someone just assume the writer is being unnecessarily verbose? I suspect this suggested rule isn't practiced widely, even by British writers, and so it cannot be relied upon. If I am wrong about this, I would still insist that the more typical usage can hardly be considered "simply incorrect". — Jeff Q 03:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I should have just struck out the whole section. It's bullshit because the sentence given simply is not ambiguous. In the Ayn Rand and God example, the sentence is ambiguous because "Ayn Rand and God" can be read as an apposition to "my parents. However, the sentence about buying macaroni and cheese cannot be read as ambiguous by anyone, American or otherwise, because everyone, whether they use the Oxford comma or they do not, uses "and" or "or" to conjoin the last item in a list.[7] Because there is no "and" before "macaroni", all readers of English know that the list has more items after it. Now, if you can bring a source that says that lists do not have their last item conjoined with "and" or "or", we can stick that back in, but until you do, it really has no place in the article, because the serial comma in fact makes no difference. I don't find "Buy bread, bacon, macaroni and cheese" in the slightest bit ambiguous. However, this example is ambiguous (from here: "My favorite types of sandwiches are roast beef, turkey club, peanut butter and jelly and cream cheese." I don't generally use the Oxford comma but, if I didn't rewrite this sentence, I would add it after "jelly".Dr Zen 05:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see Dr Zen's point. If "macaroni and cheese" was meant, the sentence would have needed "and" twice, as in: "Buy bread, bacon, and macaroni and cheese".

Not all lists of serial items include "and" or "or". It is acceptable in some cases to omit the conjunction. (Example: Any color — red, blue, green, chartreuse — would improve the decor.) I've seen this use quoted in several authoritative sources, but I don't have them handy at the moment. (If this is a point of contention, I can verify it.) If I read you right, Dr Zen, you are saying that the "macaroni and cheese" example isn't clear because it's too American. These articles should avoid confusion based on nationality or culture, so your effort to replace the example is commendable. (Your specific example could also demonstrate how rephrasing can help, as it would be ambiguous again if the PB&J were the last item(s) in the list.)

I misidentified the problem, Jeff. Luckily, with your comment, I saw what the problem was. It just wasn't ambiguous at all. Of course, it doesn't help that us Brits call it "macaroni cheese"

But your initial statement implied something rather different — that most "places outside the USA" don't use the Oxford comma, which isn't true. Again, I would caution you on making absolute or certain statements that you don't have backing evidence for. Most of the people editing these style articles are convinced they know what's right, yet they disagree on many issues. This is not because everybody but X is wrong. Any casual perusal of U.S., British, and Canadian style guides reveals significant style differences, not only between countries but also between intranational regions and even between multinational industries; e.g., journalism vs. academia vs. general publishing. (My statement is backed up by specific citations on several issues in other articles' talk pages, but again, if it is a point of contention, I can make those citations explicit here.)

Sorry, dude, but most places outside the USA do not use the Oxford comma. Style guides, schmyle guides. Cite them all you like but they do not necessarily follow usage. It's what people do that counts not what some pedant insists they ought to do. Whenever I read a piece of work, of practically any kind, and it uses the Oxford comma, I know it is from the USA, because it is practically the signature difference between the USA and elsewhere. I agree that there are great differences between places, but of course there are tendencies and usages that are more or less common in one place or another. Very few people in the UK spell "colour" without a "u", and very few in the USA spell it with. These days "-ise" predominates over "-ize" in the UK but that certainly isn't true of the USA. That's not to say that there isn't some hick paper out back of Chickpea, Indiana whose chief sub demands that their people use "-our" and "-ise".

I think a more pressing problem, however, is that there are too many points of view on this topic, and the article is suffering from multiple editors' efforts to correct only the immediate issues they perceive. As I re-read the article from start to finish, I felt mentally bruised by style and content whiplash. I am trying to avoid further involvement myself while I working on researching style usage in a global variety of references, but I would recommend to interested editors that they stop focusing on their individual bêtes noires and start considering how the entire article looks to readers. It's rather embarrassing for a Wikipedia article on a writing-style issue to be in serious need of copyediting. — Jeff Q 08:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I made just a small correction rather than rewrite the whole thing. Guilty. That tends to be the way with wiki articles though. Still, what I struck out was plain wrong. I agree that there can be ambiguity in lists of the type you mentioned but you'll do very well to find a style or usage guide that deals with it. in italicsDr Zen 09:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Can anyone briefly explain why it is allowable to quote the section from Lynne Truss's book on this page? I'm more curious, than questioning the validity of doing this. --Mike C | talk 19:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

There are no copyright problems with quoting small extracts from copyrighted works. There only becomes a problem once extensive extracts are used. Kind regards, jguk 23:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Quoting the Oxford Guide to Style

Wow, I am glad I read the talk pages before being bold and updating the article. This seems to be a passion-arousing topic. I was surprised to see that of the style guides quoted, the Oxford Guide to Style is not one. Is this because it is self-evident, or because no-one here actually has a copy? I have the 2002 edition and can add it to the article if anyone wants....? --Telsa 15:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do. We can use more examples, especially if they bring up aspects of the issue that the other examples do not address. (As with the AP quote I recently added.) While we're at it, it would be nice to get some examples from Australian and South African style guides, if anyone has some handy. The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers is mentioned in the article, but not quoted. Factitious 09:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The 1994 5th edition of the Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual (now superseded by the 6th edition available in book form only) can be downloaded as separate chapters at [8]. BlankVerse ∅ 11:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great! I've quoted it in the article — it takes an interesting intermediary position that hadn't already been covered. Factitious 01:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

As an antidote to the overuse of the Google test (among other reasons), I have been working on an Anti-Google test (aka International reference resources), which can be found at User:BlankVerse/TAGT. It is still a very rough draft with typos and other errors, but the section on Style guides is the most complete. Feel free to use it as a resource, or to add to it. BlankVerse ∅ 10:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Examples of style guides advocating only partial use of the serial comma

I've restored this section, as I feel it's important to present the various positions taken by different style guides. Most don't simply say "always use serial commas" or "never use serial commas." They take a range of intermediate positions, as mentioned in the discussion immediately above this comment. For instance, The Economist requires serial commas when an element in the list contains a conjunction, but forbids serial commas when none of the elements in the list contain conjunctions. I would be uncomfortable with putting that in with either the "support" or "oppose" categories. Factitious 01:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone reading this have a copy of the Guardian's style guide? I suspect it should actually be in the "oppose" category, and we could use a quote in either case. Factitious 01:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The question really is whether the Oxford comma is mandatory or not - not whether it is always used or never used. You won't find a style guide that prohibits it in all circumstances, you'll find many that say that it shouldn't be used without good reason, jguk 06:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The page already has an example of a style guide that prohibits it in all circumstances. Strunk and White could probably be added to that, if I remember correctly. You've divided the examples into "mandatory" and "not mandatory," but it could just as easily have been "forbidden" and "not forbidden." (Or, much less seriously, "mandatory or forbidden" and "neither mandatory nor forbidden.") It's clear that there are three categories here, and they should be displayed as such. Even if we were to keep the present mixed division, the names aren't entirely accurate — many of the "opposing mandatory use" examples actually mandate use of the serial comma in various situations. Factitious 23:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

S&W mandates it, I'm sure you meant. Grace Note 07:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful, passionate discussion of this earth-shaking topic! Personally, I call it the Oxford comma and use it day and night. But enough about me. Here's a concise, and perhaps useful, summary in Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine, Guide to Canadian English Usage (Oxford University Press, 1997): "It is a matter of debate whether to insert the final comma -- called a series or serial comma -- before the conjunction (as this guide does). Those in favour argue that the series comma prevents ambiguity, while those opposed contend that the conjunction makes it redundant. Both conventions are common, with the series comma somewhat more likely to be used in scholarly and more formal writing and less likely in newspapers and magazines." Scales 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Harvard semicolon?

Is there such a thing as a harvard/serial semicolon and if not do the same things apply for a semicolon as they might for a comma with regard to series of items. My question is both general and also as concerns wikipedia usage. -thanks,  EN1-UTE- (Talk) 23:31, 15 May 2024 UTC [refresh] </nowiki> -->Onceler (Talk) (Mail)   21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, in lists with embedded commas or conjunctions -- such as "We visited Los Angeles, California; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; Tokyo, Japan, and Katmandu, Nepal." -- you can see that the final semicolon is easily (and almost always in my experience) replaced with a comma. File this under things that don't matter very much at all. --James S. 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll just have to be content that it mattered enough that someone responded.  :) What I had been thinking of specifically was that since there appear to be 2 schools for the use of a comma just before the final conjunction in a list of items, are the criteria by which one might want to use a comma or not (and not a semicolon per your recent reply) for semicolon deliminted lists, the same? Further reflection leads me to believe that dropping this last comma would always lead to more confusion, so there never would arise a case where one would want to omit it, as one might in comma-delimited lists of simpler items. Onceler 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I find this article fascinating, particularly the section on creating ambiguity, which I had not previously considered. Good job, everyone. As regards semicolons, I think the issue is important, and I disagree with James S. I notice he does not drop the semicolon entirely, but only softens it to a comma. I think this is consistent with a style which removes final serial commas where there is no ambiguity. In each case this action lessens the division by one step. For those like me who think that a final serial comma should be kept except for places where it creates ambiguity, the same rule applies to semicolons in complex lists: keep them, normally. I have never changed such a semicolon to a comma, and did not know that others considered this standard practice until I found this page. I guess my experience is the opposite of that of James S. Make up your own mind, Onceler.

On a related note, AFAIK, in Spanish (and perhaps other languages), the final serial comma does not exist, or at least is always omitted, regardless of ambiguity. The conjunction between the two final items is considered sufficient, apparently. I don't think they have ever formally addressed this issue, particularly as regards appositives (which also exist in Spanish). At least I've never heard of anyone doing so, in my limited knowledge of Spanish intra-language analyses. --Cromwellt|Talk 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

...

In an article about proper punctuation, should there be sentences ended by "..." ? nevermind... :) Lukas 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Natural Pause Theory"

The serial comma should be used when listing items because of the natural pause that exists in the listing situation -- it's common sense people! If it's not used then it sounds all rushed, like trailing off or something. Ex. -- "We ate bread, salad, and steak for dinner." VS. "We ate bread, salad and steak for dinner." When listing items there is that natural pause as I say, even though it is so slight that it is almost imperceptible; but it exists nonetheless because the pause is undeniably there, so the final comma should ALWAYS be used! --205.188.117.65 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion, and many people agree with you. But the fact remains that the serial comma is used by some writers/publishers, and not by others. The Wikipedia article must reflect that divergence of opinion, and must not promote one side or other of the argument. I have made a change to the second paragraph, which I hope helps it to remain NPOV. Hugh2414 10:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• This comment suggests that the Oxford comma is a concern for spoken as well as written English. I regard the rhythm of spoken English as an aesthetic and practical argument for omitting a comma before the conjunction wherever possible. Consider the rhythm of 'one and two and three and four'. When the conjunctions are replaced, we get 'one, two, three and four' with the same rhythm, pleasingly slightly syncopated, with the 'four' on the same beat. If you add a 'natural pause' of the same length as the other pauses, you get 'one, two, three, and four' with an emphasis on the 'and' rather than the 'four', and probably an extra beat unless you 'rush'. It would be interesting to compare samples of spoken English on this, but I strongly suspect that the former is preferred. The presence of the 'and' in place of a comma or breath is a warning to the listener and reader that that was the penultimate item of the list and that the end of the sentence is near enough that someone reading aloud doesn't need to inhale again.
• There is also the complexity argument against the Oxford comma. The inclusion rule could be stated 'There is a comma after each item, and a comma and a conjunction before the final item, except where there are only two items in the list, when there is merely a conjunction'. The exclusion rule would be 'There is a comma after each item, except the penultimate one where a conjunction is used'. Programming code for natural language output is more complex when adopting the Oxford comma, because you need to count the number of items in the list first.Cedders 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Weird example

The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is written with a serial comma, but "ham, chips and eggs" is not.'

After comparing both phrases for nearly two minutes I decided there must be something wrong with this example. --Abdull 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... perhaps you could be a bit more specific? --Xanzzibar 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentance is, perhaps, slightly unclear as to its meaning. I think a better wording may be "A serial comma is prsesent in the phrase "ham, chips, and eggs", but not in the phrase "ham, chips and eggs"". As it stands it is a little ambiguous as it could be read as intending to mean that the two examples mean different things, rather than exhibiting what 'the' comma looks like. Kcordina 13:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that this is a really bad wording. I too, looked at the phrase as saying: "ham, chips, and eggs" should contain a serial comma, while "Ham, chips and eggs should not. I agree that saying: 'The phrase "ham, chips, and eggs" is an example of a sentence using the serial comma.' spaetz 10 April 2006

Fascinating article

I had no idea that this style of comma usage had a name, nor that it was actually advocated by some reputable style guides. I've always preferred it myself, but not used it, as I was taught at school that it was incorrect. Reading this has left me feeling both smarter and happier! --Stormie 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's actually probably the best article on the Oxford comma that I've ever read. Like Wikipedia's own style guide (until today :), many completely ignore the ambiguities caused by use or expectation of a mandatory Oxford comma. (In fact, from a quick survey, mandatory use causes more ambiguities than mandatory omission because it is more common to have a singular being described using a subclause, than it is to have a plural.) It could do with some more amusing examples, but the Betty one is very clear and well-explained. Cedders 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)