Language desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 30

What did they call POTUS candidate supporters before they called them supporters?

I have seen John Quincy Adams voters succinctly called Adams men so was that the most common thing to call them for awhile? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "supporter" is not an idiomatic or specialized word in this context. It means the same thing it means in all other uses of the same word, and as such, itself is not a word with a specialized meaning. There is no special term, nor has there been, for people that support a particular political candidate. --Jayron 32 13:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), I'm seeing "supporters" used almost all the way back. But guess what's different: They nearly always used the person's title. Mr. Jefferson, General Jackson, Mr. Lincoln, and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famously, the New York Times still does that, possibly the only paper of record still to do so. --Viennese Waltz 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being classy is a nearly-lost art. :( As to the term POTUS, it appears to be newer than "supporters" of the president, dating back to roughly the late 1800s, and apparently connected to telegraphy, where they tried to keep messages as short as possible. (Kind of Western Union's precursor to Twitter.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist does it too. —Tamfang (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War II vs. the Second World War

My two questions are about the naming of World War I and World War II.

The formulation involving a regnal number at the end is normally reserved for monarchs, ships etc., is it not? We don't talk about Boer War II or Afghan War II, or France's Republic V. That article is silent about its use beyond humans.

I read in World War I (which up till then had been known as "the Great War"): After World War II began in 1939, the terms became more standard, with British Empire historians, including Canadians, favouring "The First World War" and Americans "World War I".

Given that the US was a relative latecomer to both world wars, preferring to remain neutral unless provoked, how come the American preference came to be the standard name? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, Wikipedia follows the most commonly used expression found in reliable sources in English. See WP:COMMONNAME. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about what Wikipedia may or may not call them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just due to the proportion of English speakers in the US vs the rest of the world and the size of the American publishing industry. --Khajidha (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. If I were keen to know and had time and energy to spare, I might look for clues in the contexts of the early uses of this and closely related names. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was also known as "the World War" until the second one came along, an expression also widely used in British newspapers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. So, when they needed to distinguish the two wars, what led them to coining the term "World War II" rather than "the Second World War"? If nobody knows, maybe I'll have to resort to using Sense VI to find out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that the press preferred that form because of how well it abbreviates to WW1 and WW2, fitting nicely into limited headline space: "WW1 VETS MEMORIAL". To determine if this is actually the reason, I'd look to see if occurrences in the press predated use elsewhere (this wouldn't be absolute proof, but is a good indication). SinisterLefty (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Newspapers.com (a pay site, and not comprehensive) suggests that they simply called WWII "the War" while it was going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this term would have been applied after. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SinisterLefty, I suspect you're right. Maybe we'll never know for sure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to an answer to the question "Who named the first and second world wars?" in the Guardian newspaper [1], the formulation World War I and World War II were first used by Time magazine in its June 12 issue in 1939. Mikenorton (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, three months before the start of the war, and two and a half years before the US itself got involved. That is very interesting. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by the US preference becoming the standard name. The US preference is only the standard name in the US. In other English-speaking countries, the standard names are First World War and Second World War. And in the rest of the world, the standard names are something else entirely. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means "standard name on Wikipedia", given that the U.S. is not the only English-speaking country; he's asking why the "Second World War" formulation is not used at Wikipedia. The answer is contained in Wikipedia policy: WP:ENGVAR states, and I quote directly here so there is no confusion, "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." (bold mine). What that means is that when we have an option between two equivalent choices, there's no reason to change an established usage for another one. In this case, the "World War II" style is currently established in the article(s) in question, therefore policy says we should not change it arbitrarily to the equally correct style "Second World War". --Jayron 32 12:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He said he was "not talking about what Wikipedia may or may not call them". Surtsicna (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he isn't. Please ignore me. I'm stupid. --Jayron 32 12:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We might just be a bit too immersed into the Wikipedia universe :D Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, the two options seem to mirror everyday date writing differences between the US/UK, with Nov 2 matching to WW2 and 2nd Nov matching to Second World War. Which is odd because, as a Canadian, I would use either formulation for the war(s) without thought that it was even a US/UK difference. To me, they're just synonyms. But, I find the 2nd Nov formulation very jarring. Matt Deres (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same here in the US, on both counts, although in written form I'd use "WW2" to save time, but in spoken form I might use either. And yes, the only way I'd use "2nd November" is "This was my 2nd November in the new house, and this year I decided to cook a turkey for Thanksgiving." SinisterLefty (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For my tuppenceworth (as opposed to 2¢), as a Brit I would normally refer verbally and in formal print to "the First/Second World War", but in online discussions or posts I often use the forms WW1/2 or WWI/II simply to save keyboarding effort. However if the discussion has already settled on a particular convention, I conform to it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On yet another hand, Wall Street types seem to say "4Q" almost as readily as "Q4" (for October, November and December). —Tamfang (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In American business, I've only ever heard "Fourth Quarter", not "Quarter Four". There's no explaining the oddities of English usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We sometimes see the form "7 V 1973" to indicate 7 May 1973. This avoids the issue of not being sure whether "7.5.1973" means 7 May or 5 July, because of the different transatlantic practices. But we never see "Month V" to mean May. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why V for May ? I can see where M and A are used for other months, but why not Y ? (Although I'd use a 3 letter abbrev for months to remove all question.) SinisterLefty (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The months are indicated by Roman numerals. V = the fifth month. Deor (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence Christmas would be 25 XII, while New Tear's Day would be 1 I? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread at Quora here that discusses the use of Roman Numerals for months. --Jayron 32 15:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: The New Tear's Day isn't commonly celebrated, is it? At least I've never heard about it before...

--CiaPan (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's near Year on the keyboard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is different. I only think of years when I see Roman numerals in a date. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found Bulletin of the Utah Lepidopterists' Society, Volumes 2-10 (1982) p. 47 which says: "But the greatest reason for the discontinued use of the Roman numeral system for designation of months is that, by its inherent nature, it actually provides constant opportunity for creating false scientific data. In the vast number of transpositions from the known month into Roman numerals, errors can be made, and occasionally they are made! Why should this transposition from a known (correct) month be made into Roman numerals at all? English is the dominant language used on earth today. More people now use English in their scientific work than any other language. Designating months directly in English makes good sense, and no errors can be made doing so. Nearly all months in nearly all the western languages are the same as, or so similar to, the English months so that no recognition problems between languages exist. Modern dating of scientific data labels should use the first three letters of English months (with the first letter capitalized). The date should always precede the month as used in Europe and the military". Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... and no errors can be made doing so" - yeah, right. "The date should always precede the month ..." - go tell that to the Yanks, who do their own thing with date formats. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except in the military, where they do it the un-American way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for 2019-11-04, since it sorts nicely into chronological order. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the method I use for grouping files on my PC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]