Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans manual
Apostrophe in title
The recent addition of an apostrophe in the article title is incorrect. If you have a Prius, you would call the owner's manual "the Prius Manual", as in "the Manual to the Prius"; you would not say "The Prius' Manual", as in "the Manual belonging to the Prius". This way you can say things like "I borrowed Brian's Warcraft Manual" and avoid the ridiculousness of "I borrowed Brian's Warcraft's Manual". Same goes for, say, the "iPod User Guide" on the Apple website - it's not "iPod's User Guide".
I would revert the move myself, but there are a lot of pages linking here. Once someone assures me I don't have to manually revert every reference, I'd be happy to do it... - jerodast (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure it is incorrect? Since the manual belongs to the game, should it not enter the possessive? --DoomeЯ TC 18:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I am pretty sure, but not 100% sure since I could not find any grammar guides specific to product manuals :) I did list several examples in my original post which I think illustrate the issue well. I also could've gone on to point out that they don't call it a "car's manual", they call it an "owner's manual". That is, the possessive applies to the owner, not the car. I have also heard the term "product manual", but not "product's manual". Do any of the examples I gave seem wrong? Again, I'm only going off the common usage based on my experience.
- I think you're making an inaccurate assumption with your logic: The manual does not "belong to" the game. The physical manual belongs to the consumer, and the copyright to its contents belongs to Blizzard. The manual is associated and included with the game, it refers to the game, but these are not the same thing as possession, so that grammar isn't technically correct.
Difference from printed manuals?
How does this differ from the printed manuals? Should someone interested in the history of Warcraft lore track one down, or is this the same content (perhaps minus some punctuation fixes and such)? The article takes pains to mention it is a reproduction of the ONLINE manual, but it also lists no differences, which I would expect to be quite relevant to a page like this. Someone who has the original manual might want to add in a quick sentence to clarify the situation. - jerodast (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)