Talk:Sic
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | A fact from Sic appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 October 2010. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Is an oral (spoken) "original" still called a "source text"?
[edit source]As of the "Latest revision as of 17:32, 2 June 2025" version of this article, the caption for the first photo says, in part,
exactly as found in the source text.
However, it goes on to say
Example is from a United States Supreme Court case, Briggs v. Connecticut, 447 U.S. 912 (1980).
The suggests to me that the "original", in some cases, might have been spoken as opposed to written. (or ... it might have been "spoken" originally, and then 'transcribed' into written form, (such as an electronic [or, ink-on-paper] record of a deposition or of some testimony) before serving as the source for a certain 'Wikipedia' use -- (e.g. in a caption, like this one, ... or in [the "ref" tag for] a footnote).
If the "original" was [originally] spoken as opposed to written, then ... is that ['case'] still "covered"? (by saying something like "exactly as found in the source text") -- ? --
"suggestion" for a change to that caption
[edit source]If not, then ... wouldn't it be better for this caption to instead say something more like << exactly as found in the source text or other "original" >> -- ? --
Just a suggestion. Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Court cases are transcribed professionally by stenographers, aren't they? Then I'd say the answer to your first question would be yes, the case is still "covered". Gommeh 🎮 15:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd support a change here. Just "exactly as found in the original" would work. You're right that the original version in the photo is spoken, so "text" is inappropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Done; The DIFF is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sic&diff=prev&oldid=1297923432
- – case closed
Resolved - --Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
correction abbreviation
[edit source]Corr. seems to be used for Correction Korr. also from German Korrektur or korrigiert
perhaps these can be added. I am not sure of usage. FOR me it means the text had an error when published but a later text is published with the correction made. So this is not sic or right form, but an error like a typo that has been fixed. ~2025-41011-25 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)