User talk:Orbea

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Giggy (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

'Entitled' vs. 'titled'
Hi Orbea. What, pray tell, is the problem with the word "entitled"? You appear to be engaged in an attempt to purge Wikipedia of the word. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rivertorch. I have found that there seems to be too much entitlement in the world and I am doing my small part to curb the rabid obsession with it... But I do have a strange habit of going on a mission to find more when I stumble upon one. I continue until boredom sets in. My small contribution to grammarkind. --Orbea (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have found that there seems to be too much entitlement in the world That's clever, and kudos for stopping when boredom sets in, but I'm asking a serious question. You're free to prefer the use of "titled", but is nothing ungrammatical about using "entitled" in the contexts where you've been changing it. The English language is rich in synonyms, and Wikipedia is no better—and, arguably, worse—when one of them is banished for no valid reason. Also, it is an unnecessary change, akin to removing double spaces after periods, adding needless clutter to editors' already crowded watchlists. More importantly still, your edit summary for these edits is misleading, suggesting a grammatical problem where none exists, and that is disruptive. Please reconsider your approach here. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   01:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Books, movies, manuscripts, etc. are not 'entitled' to anything. The use of entitled in these contexts is incorrect less preferred. I was simply trying to interject some levity to the situation with my earlier response. The AP Stylebook's entry on this is "entitled - Use it to mean a right to do or have something. Do not use it to mean titled." Associated Press. The Associated Press Stylebook 2015 (p. 92). --Orbea (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question, but Rivertorch beat me to it. "Entitled" is perfectly correct in these contexts and is older and better established than "titled", even if it isn't AP Style. "Titled" is also technically correct (although its usage in this context is more recent and strikes me as American, journalistic, and stylistically ugly). Style guides don't just establish "correct" and "incorrect" usage; they often choose between two or more correct variants to ensure consistency. That's the case in the AP example you give. Wikipedia badly needs copy editors and grammarians, so if you like making this type of edit, I'm sure the project would appreciate your help in fixing unambiguous errors. Thanks for your work. PhainetaiMoi (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the levity, Orbea—I hope you got that from the way I began my reply. If not, I'm sorry. I don't want to discourage you. Nevertheless,  to say that the use of "entitled" in these contexts is "incorrect" is a matter of opinion. I used to follow AP style in my off-wiki professional life, but Wikipedia isn't bound by it or any other style guide except our own WP:MOS, which is silent on the question. (It does, however, use "entitle" to mean "title" on four of its innumerable pages.) All seven major English dictionaries available online—American Heritage, Oxford, Webster's New World, Merriam-Webster, Chambers, Random House, and Collins—define "entitle" in the way you're calling incorrect; four of them list that definition first, and none indicates any usage problem.
 * On a more general note, I'd just like to say that while I rarely find a prescriptive approach to language helpful when editing Wikipedia, I am a stickler for certain grammatical conventions, especially when they aid in making an article's prose clear, unambiguous, and flowing. I believe your entitled-titled edits were intended in a similar vein, and I applaud your motive even though you're mistaken.  Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   07:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to the both of you. My use of the word 'incorrect' was not accurate. I should have used 'less preferred'. I was instructed to write via the AP Stylebook and was taught that modern usage preferred titled in these cases. "Google News searches covering the last few years show that titled now prevails by an approximately three-to-one margin." I'll abandon my "ridding Wikipedia of entitled usage" so that editors' watchlists are not needlessly crowded with minor edits. Thanks for the input Rivertorch and PhainetaiMoi :) --Orbea (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad I'm not still writing in news style. No apolgies needed (but gladly accepted anyway). Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)