Talk:Comma splice

message: My understanding is that a run-on sentence is not the same as a comma splice; a run-on sentence has no punctuation between the two independent clauses.
E.g.,
Correct: It is nearly half past five; we cannot reach town before dark.
Comma splice: It is nearly half past five, we cannot reach town before dark.
Run-on sentence: It is nearly half past five we cannot reach town before dark.
Chuck 22:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that a comma splice is a type of run-on sentence, with some grammarians using the term "fused sentence" to distinguishing run-ons with no punctuation. --Muchness 18:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following quotation from the Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers clarifies this point. "A run-on occurs when no punctuation at all separates two independant clauses." (5th ed., p. 509) --Davidstrauss 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm confused. Shouldn't there be a comma in this example of a "comma splice"?
:A run-on sentence is a sentence that contains a comma splice.
: This linguistics article is a stub.  You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it].
--hydnjo talk 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the comma?

message: If you're interested in helping Wikipedia fix comma splices or you find them annoying in general, you can use Template:User comma-splice to your userboxes. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comma-splice template 

message: Why did someone change this to a typography stub? It's a grammar and linguistics stub.  has mainly fonts in it. bCube.talk(contribs); 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't grammar, it's style, as reflected by the content at this point. English grammar isn't controlled that way there's no Academie Englais oder. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar stub 

message: The article said the comma splice was considered an error "especially in American English". But I'm pretty sure there's no 'especially' about it; it's definitely considered an error in British English too. So I've changed it, but if anyone disagrees, let me know. (I don't know if the term 'comma splice' was coined in The Elements of Style — if it was, that should probably be mentioned.) Spandrawn 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that having comma splices are less taboo in British English...or it could be a coincidence that all the authors cited on this page who use them use British English. Justbobdanish (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read almost every style guide (for English) produced in the last century or so (used to have a massive book collection, including hundreds of style guides, as one of WP:MOS's main shepherds), and I've never seen a British or other one recommend comma splices, so "especially in American English" appears to be someone's original research. It's a trivial matter to cherry-pick through published materials to find examples of writers doing it, and select just those from a particular country to give a false impression of acceptance in a particular dialect. The recent edit to remove the "especially in American English" claim was the correct move, pending some astoundingly good sourcing that proves a well-accepted dialectal split on this matter. The very fact that our own editors hunt down and eliminate comma splices in our material regardless where they are from is strong internal evidence against this notion. More anecdotally, I have lived for extended periods in the US, the UK, and Canada, and comma splices are  as common in low-quality American writing as they are anywhere else, and are not common in high-quality writing anywhere, in my experience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British as well 

message: But I found the quote from the Jerusalem Bible in this week's mass readings, which is much better!
Mhkay 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: "I would argue that copying is not a criminal offence, it is merely irresponsible."
I would write this sentence without compunction, but it seems to be against the rules, and not within the scope of any of the acknowledged exceptions. Using a semicolon or dash in place of the comma seems far too strong in this situation; it seems to
encourage the "it is merely irresponsible" to be contrasted with the "I would argue" rather than with "copying is not..." Mhkay (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a colon would be the traditional choice in this example. The second clause elaborates or explains the first clause, a classic use of the colon. I think the tendency to use a comma here is an overgeneralization of the construction "Not this, but that." There is a sense of contradiction, but as the conjunction cannot be used, neither can the comma.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.44.72 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this acceptable? 

message: It shouldn't start a sentence. Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such rule. However, if you can supply a source for your claim, we will consider it. Heron (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However" is postpositive, I believe. 

message: particularly in living languages. This is purely a matter of writing style and a pretty trivial one at that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what speech has to do with it, since commas don't occur in speech; this is obviously just a writing matter.  If you're implying some action should be taken because of that fact, please state as much explicitly.  Telanis (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech determines grammar ... 

message: In the world of professional editing, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th) is one of several modern comprehensive style guides that are in wide use. Strunk & White is extremely old-fashioned and increasingly condemned in professional editorial circles (http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/strunk-and-white.aspx, https://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497), and it isn't even used a style guide by any known English-language publisher, so at least adding the advice given in modern style guides like CMOS would be more relevant and more helpful for this article. 71.227.163.196 (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be great to summarise what CMOS has to say on the subject. Go ahead and do it! Mhkay (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better style guide source? 

message: Simply removing the comma does not correct the error, but results in a run-on sentence (if the sentence is not one already). There are several alternatives to using a comma splice:
* Change the comma to a semicolon, em dash, or colon:
** It is nearly half past five; we cannot reach town before dark.
** It is nearly half past five—we cannot reach town before dark.
** We cannot reach town before dark: it is nearly half past five.
:: In the last example, the two clauses must be transposed.  A colon often introduces a reason or explanation: the colon becomes a substitute for "because".  The clause giving the reason ("it is nearly half past five") must follow the clause that needs explanation ("We cannot reach town before dark").
* Write the two clauses as two separate sentences:
** It is nearly half past five.  We cannot reach town before dark.
* Insert a coordinating conjunction following the comma:
** It is nearly half past five, so we cannot reach town before dark.
** It is nearly half past five, and we cannot reach town before dark.
* Make one clause dependent on the other:
** Because it is nearly half past five, we cannot reach town before dark.
** It is nearly half past five, which means we cannot reach town before dark.
* Use a semicolon plus a conjunctive adverb:
** It is nearly half past five; hence, we cannot reach town before dark.
* Make the sentence a conditional statement:
** If it is nearly half past five, we cannot reach town before dark.
I've  because Wikipedia is not a usage guide. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of understanding what is a comma splice is understanding what isn't a comma splice.  I agree the wording and title could use a tweak per WP:NOTHOWTO, but the article is less informative and incomplete if it doesn't provide alternative sentence forms that are not comma splices. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the best thing would be to find a source that explicitly contrasts comma splices with not-comma-splices for purposes of commenting on the topic of comma splices – not simply extrapolating from a source saying "do this – not this". That would produce an article that's simply a usage guide in disguise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I have to agree, this page is much less useful without the section on correction. Elliot321 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please have a look at WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter". The removed content is simply an adaptation of examples from Strunk's original The Elements of Style arranged in order to instruct readers in punctuation and grammar. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should add that section to a site like WikiSource then, and link it from this page with the usual "There is a page related to this at WikiSource" template Elliot321 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting comma splices 

message: I added the  message box  – a significant part of the article's content, including additions already discussed on this talk page, is evidently based on analysis, synthesis, or interpretation that may or may not be directly attributable to an existing, published source. I've listed some examples below. Any help finding reliable, published sources that explicitly support these and other statements would be appreciated.
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a very extreme interpretation of the rules on original research. You seem to be suggesting that if we find 17 people who all say X, and two who say otherwise, then reporting "most people say X but some disagree" is unacceptable synthesis. That surely can't be what's intended by the rules. Equally, you seem to be saying that if an authority describes a grammatical rule, we can't explain the rule with a simple example unless that authority (or some other authority) used the same example. If we were to follow that principle, it would become impossible to explain complex concepts to a general audience, which is surely what Wikipedia is intended for. Mhkay (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is actually intended to be a summary of accepted knowledge. For Wikipedia's purposes, "accepted" means, at minimum, "published". Any explanations of concepts – indeed, all material – must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Wikipedia's policies are very clear about not allowing any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources. This applies to examples as much as anything else, which is necessary to avoid undue weight.  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

text:  Furthermore, we have not found 17 sources who say "X", or anything close to it, so that's a straw man argument. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mhkay.  Regarding the first bullet point Sangdeboeuf has listed above, there's nothing wrong with citing a few style guides to support a statement about what style guides say; there's no need to find some meta-source that has already summarised style guides for us.   you might be interested in Wikipedia:These are not original research, which describes common-sense limitations about what is considered prohibited original research. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some points: First, one of the sources in the first example is not actually a style guide. Second, the phrase "Some English style guides" doesn't indicate anything about the relative weight that the cited opinions carry; it would be equally true – and no more encyclopedic – to write, "Some authors have stated that the Earth is flat". Secondary and tertiary sources are absolutely needed to establish due weight, per WP:BALANCE. Third,  doesn't address vague qualifiers like "Some", which could just as verifiably be changed to "few" or "hardly any" (since only two sources are cited); and finally, that essay doesn't necessarily indicate what is "considered" original research by the Wikipedia community – it is only an essay, not a policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, , are you saying that describing "I came, I saw, I conquered" as "famous" is interpretation or analysis that must be cited? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the context of comma splices, yes. It's also the kind of loaded word that might be described as puffery. But if the phrase is so famous, then finding a reliable source that discusses it in grammatical terms should be a trivial matter. If there is no such source, then the statement's inclusion here is a red flag indicating original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling a famous quote "famous" is not puffery.  Did you understand this excellent advice from ? Perhaps you could resolve the tag you keep insisting on yourself using one of these sources? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Famous" according to whom? How many times do I have to point out that all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source? That is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. But now that you've gone to the trouble of identifying sources, there's nothing stopping you from adding one to the article yourself. A few clicks and you're done. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion continued at user's talk page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Looking at the changes made to this article over the last couple of months I find them very disappointing. The whole structure and flow of the article has been lost. A new structure has been imposed (by changing the headings) which doesn't fit the content, and the whole thing now feels random and disjointed. I'm very tempted to revert it back to where it was at the beginning of February. Mhkay (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What specific actions/problems are you proposing? Describing some would be more helpful than simply saying "I don't like it". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My personal preference would be to roll back the article to where it was. A lot of people put a lot of effort in and I think you have spoiled it. But that's Wikipedia; nothing has permanence, whatever its quality. I'm not going to start an edit war, and I have no desire to redo work that I did five years ago just because someone with more energy has their own views. I will just sigh, and learn the lesson that working on Wikipedia can be very unrewarding. In particular, the constraints you are suggesting of not allowing any kind of analysis, comparison, or evaluation of sources to my mind eliminate any motivation to take part at all. Great encyclopaedias were never written by copy-editors, they were written by experts. Mhkay (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great encyclopedias may be written by experts, but even experts are expected to adhere to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. See : "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong". Also, if you will look at my comments under  above, you will see that I am not suggesting "not allowing any kind of analysis, comparison, or evaluation of sources" – I am asking for secondary sources that can be used to support said evaluation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I'm not seeing any sources that explicitly place "I came, I saw, I conquered" in the same category as Strunk's joining of clauses that are "very short" and "alike in form", so I removed the statement to that effect. Usually this sentence is treated as a special example of rhetorical style rather than punctuation. Consider this excerpt from Follett's Modern American Usage: 
 —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "I came, I saw, I conquered"

message: Does everyone know a German translation for comma splice? --Worm&Virus (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  comma splice in German