Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 March 22

= March 22 =

Spanish translation help needed
If there's a better place for this that can provide something close to immediate assistance, please let me know...

Could someone who speaks Spanish please check the last few edits, and especially the source for those edits, of the Lupe Fuentes article? There are some BLP concerns but the source is in Spanish and I don't speak/read Spanish. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * They seem fine, factually speaking. The El País article reports on Fuentes/Zuleidy making offers in the second paragraph, then in the third they report that the police are looking for her (le is unlikely to refer to Lapiedra).  It doesn't appear to say that Lapiedra said Fuentes was in charge, but rather a minor said that Fuentes went around making offers.  Also, police sources - as far as I can see, rather than the "principals" - mention she was in ten films. -  --  the Great   Gavini  05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Straighter" as a noun
Please help me understand what S. Maugham meant by the word "straighter" (as a noun). The context is the following: "You can buy a packet of straighters for three-pence". Please mind that it's "straighter", not "straightener". I cannot find it anywhere, so I would appreciate any help. It is probably a slang word of the time... Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielig (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OED Online – Straight: "A cigarette, esp. one containing ordinary tobacco as opposed to marijuana. [1923 J. Manchon Le Slang 296 A straight = a straighter = a straight cut, une cigarette en tabac de Virginie.]" I've created a Wiktionary entry; if you have a full citation for the Maugham quotation, you can add it to the entry (or post it here, and someone else will add it). — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Renamed as"
Is it standard in any variety of English? American English? Indian English? As in "The British Broadcasting Company was renamed as the British Broadcasting Corporation". As a speaker of British English I would leave out the "as" and say "The BBC was renamed the BBC". I see "renamed as" quite a lot in articles and don't know whether to correct it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In US English it sounds OK, but I would prefer "renamed to". Also, in your sentence above, I would put quotes around the names, since the subject of the discussion is the names themselves. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Having been a professional editor in the United States for many years, I would say that, while renamed as is not uncommon in colloquial American English, it is substandard, and I endorse the edit you want to make. As for quotation marks, I disagree with StuRat.  Quotation marks are generally used only for direct quotations.  In used in a number of ways, but in the sentence you have cited, they would be out of place.  Marco polo (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quotation marks are used for far more than direct quotes. Here I refer to the "use-mention distinction". StuRat (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense; thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I'm aware of that use of quotation marks, and I've corrected my previous statement. I just think it's out of place in this case. Consider the following sentence:


 * "StuRat" was renamed "Stuart."


 * Maybe you would want quotation marks there, but I think they are out of place. The subject of the sentence is StuRat.  (As you can see, I prefer italics for words singled out for attention as words, but quotation marks could have worked there, too.)  The word StuRat is not being singled out for attention as a word in the sentence above.  Rather the rest of the sentence is about StuRat, just as most sentences are about their subjects. I can see a case being made for quotation marks or italicization for Stuart, but in the sentence above, it would be superfluous, because the verb renamed indicates clearly that what follows is the new name.  There is no need to set it off for clarity.  I think that the sentence is clearer without unnecessary and somewhat ambiguous marking.  Because quotation marks are also often used ironically (see Scare quotes), they are best avoided where any irony might be suspected.  Marco polo (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - quotes around the second name, which is being "mentioned", and not around the first name, which is being "used". Here I use ironic ironic quotes. 213.122.51.72 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)