Talk:Two Weeks Notice

Title Punctuation
is it really improperly punctuated? I'm no English major but the "correct" (or so it's called by this article) would imply ownership of notice or be expandable to two weeks is notice?

I would guess Two weeks notice is correct seeing as how the notice is for two weeks. The same going for say a one day notice. One day notice is correctly punctuated so take it to the next level with two weeks notice.

Note that if no one responds to this post, I will remove that sentence.Bubbleboys 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that isn't entirely correct, it should be One Day's Notice. So yes, the author is correct in her deduction. Wangfoo 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Two Week's Notice Two Weeks' Notice is correct, because it is a short version of Notice of Two Weeks. &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, everybody stop being ungrammatical, please. (*cough*Dbmag9*cough*) If I give you notice, and I give you one day's worth of notice, then I have given you one day's notice; or alternatively I have given you a one-day notice. (Mark the hyphen.) If I give you two weeks' worth of notice (mark the placement of the apostrophe), then I have given you two weeks' notice. On the other hand, it's idiomatically just as correct to say that I have given you a time period of two weeks as notice; or, eliding the useless words, that I have given you two weeks (as) notice. Analogously, I could give you two yards' (worth of) head start, or two yards (as a) head start. Or, of course, I could give you a two-yard head start, which I think is the most idiomatic expression in that case; but "give two-week notice" doesn't scan at all.

Short answer: Either way can be idiomatically correct, but the apostrophized version is much more likely to appeal to the sort of faux pedant who would read Eats, Shoots and Leaves (or talk about "people whom I think are less pedantic than I"). ;-) Hope this helps. --Quuxplusone 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Three years later: I hope that quote is meant to be grammatically wrong. Because it assuredly is.Grant (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Five years later: I believe you are mistaken. You may find this illustrative. Simple Machine (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read that in Hollywood it is considered bad luck for a film to have a question mark in its title, hence for example Who Framed Roger Rabbit not having a question mark at the end of its name. Maybe the rule applies to all punctuation? --86.146.161.73 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be a in pop culture reference for eats, shoots, and leaves. Also, i disagree with the author because in "two weeks notice", "two weeks" acts as an adjective describing the noun, "notice." Also, in English, we pronounce s' as s-es i.e. chris' dog would  be pronounced chris-es. two weeks notice isn't pronounced two weeks-es notice. 67.159.74.65 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The title is incorrect. It should be 'Two Weeks' Notice.' There used to be a note about this, but it has been removed. I would like to see it put back. Arguments about whether or not the possessive apostrophe is included based on pronunciation are ridiculous. You would never pronounce Jameses' pens (the pens belonging to the two or more Jameses) as 'James-es-es pens,' but the apostrophe must still be included to mark possession. 94.193.134.98 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see such a note, too. But, in order to avoid accusations of original research, we need to find mention of the issue in a quotable source. In the meantime, I shall correct the non-titular propagation of the error within the text (There's a lot of guff on this talk page: "Chris' dog" is plain wrong. You can't get two s sounds from one s. Compare Bridget Jones's Diary, which is correctly punctuated.) Grant (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously suggesting that, if the notice period had been a month instead of two weeks, the film would have been called "A Month Notice"? Grant (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with 'Chris' dog.' There is, however, something wrong with misusing speech marks. 94.193.134.98 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather ridiculous. Regardless of what the correct for should be in ordinary writing, "Two Weeks Notice" is the title, and any use of the title should be written just that way. We could argue at length that all the Apple product names which stars with a lower case "I" followed by an upper case letter are "wrong", but titles and names are not subject to the rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Wschart (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis
Is it a problem that the synopsis is a copy of the same at IMDB, or vice-versa? If it was taken from there maybe the source should be cited. If it is the opposite that happened, it might be kind of sad but not a Wikipedia problem, I guess. brucemcdon – 05:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor grammar in film synopsis
It seems silly to me to have "Golden Globe winner" repeated when it could be simply be pluralised.

"starring Golden Globe winners Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock" instead of "starring Golden Globe winner Hugh Grant and Golden Globe winner Sandra Bullock"

Anyone else feel this way or is it just me? --George Brown 17:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Two Weeks Notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131821490200/http://www.worldwidewords.org/reviews/re-eat1.htm to http://www.worldwidewords.org/reviews/re-eat1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Two Weeks Notice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140313193035/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/books/chapters/1115-1st-truss-eats.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0 to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/books/chapters/1115-1st-truss-eats.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)