Public
Federated
Thread
:verified:
Sorry Ken but I have to agree with Anrza here; adding apostrophes to make something plural is the kind of thing you expect from greengrocers, not encyclopedias. Since you know a lot about Wikipedia I thought there may be some precedent that you were following, but it looks like you just decided to make a unilateral MOS edit after the fact instead.
If there is a precedent on WP then I'd like to see it, maybe even reverse it. If not then I'd like to point out that Google ngrams for 1000s vs 1000's or 1960s vs 1960's, to pick a couple of random examples, shows a distinct skew away from using apostrophes. More to the point, I know of no rationale for using an apostrophe to make a plural unless you're a greengrocer who doesn't know any better. Maybe it's because it's way past my bedtime but it seems to me like you're exceeding your perceived authority here, Ken. If I'm mistaken then please forgive the insinuation.
OK, I take it back. The New York Times seemed to have changed their style book between the edition I have and the newer one online.
BTW, I have no "authority" here, except that which may come with 12 years of editing, over 200,000 edits, and the respect of a number of other editors.
Hence why I used the word perceived. After posting this section I found the discussion, such as it was, on Anrza's talk page. Looking at the timestamps I'm a bit disappointed that you would read Anzra's reply referring you to the Manual of Style, which clearly says, "As always, do not use an apostrophe to form a plural", then elect to edit the MOS in order to have it your own way. Given your exhaustive contributions to WP I thought you'd hold yourself to higher standards than that. I hope you've now undone your edit.
