Lore talk:The Bear of Markarth

Sieged SicEdit

Sieged should not have a sic tag because there is nothing wrong with it. The word itself may be out of use, but it is used correctly with its definition (ie, it isn't used for anything else). Non-standard presentation is a catch-all definition that people should use only in extremely rare cases. Bethesda had a habit of using old words to throw people in the single-player games, such as Saadia's use of 'mum' when referring to Hulda, and there have been many other cases of words being used with non-standard definitions, but we have not and do not sic tag these, instead preferring to trust the intelligence of the readership to be used. Only in cases where it becomes apparent should it be noted, and even in this case there is still no need for a sic. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:23, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

I agree. A sic tag probably isn't necessary, especially considering the definition of the word, which is to surround and assault a city with a military force. It ought to be very easy to understand that the word "sieged" is being used in that case. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 23:26, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Siege as a verb is incredibly rare as a usage, which is how it is used here. 99% of the time, the word used is going to be "besieged". The way a sic works is that incorrect spelling, grammar or rare usages are marked as coming directly from the text, not our site. Siege may be correct, but the standard usage of siege is a noun. There IS another use for siege from a verb, that is a siege as a noun. In English terms, this is regarded as a completely separate usage, not as a variation on the same usage. Thus, the use of siege as a verb deserves a sic, entirely due to the extremely rare usage in this way (use of siege as a verb is really only used in the form "lay siege to" not simply "siege", so this usage is rare, even for using siege as a verb). Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

I agree with Silencer. Seiged and seige are perfectly valid as a verb. I've checked three online dictionaries and a paper one, as all of them say that seige can be used as a verb. And nobody has ever attempted to change it to beseige in three years of the page, so what's the point of the tag?--AN|L (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

The word is sieged not siege, and the definition and usage are correct. The sic tag does not belong. Archaic meanings do not apply when used with archaic words. I'd rather trust the intelligence of the readership to understand that give the impression that we don't have enough. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:35, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

Yes, pretty much what Silencer said.--Jimeee (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

Anil, siege can be used as a verb, but the common usage is "lay siege to" or "laid siege to" NOT "siege" or "sieged" alone, which is what is used here. It is technically correct, but "octopodes" is technically correct, and no one ever uses it. Just because something is correct does not mean it is common, and sic is used for rare usages, which is what this usage is. I refuse to believe that "siege" by itself is a common usage in today's English, because it quite simply, isn't. Jeancey (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

But the word is sieged, not siege. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:53, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

That literally doesn't change a single thing silencer. Sieged is just as rare as siege in this usage, as you'll notice I specifically mentioned in my last reply. "Laid siege to" is the typical usage, being used 9 times out of 10, with that last one being "sieged." If you'd read my replies, you'd realize I already addressed that. Jeancey (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) You haven't addressed the usage of sieged, it's all about siege. Sieged is used and used correctly. Were the word used 'siege' then it would need a sic tag, but it isn't. It doesn't matter that sieged is a rare word, there are many examples through the games of the same but we don't tag them because there is no need to. Archaic words are not covered by wikipedias defined usage of sic tags, only spellings which this is not. Non-standard presentation is one of those catch-all terms that should be avoided like the plague but it still doesn't apply here. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:02, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Did you not ready anything I said? I specifically said "sieged." I'll spell it out for you. "Sieged" is not a common usage. The common usage would be "laid siege to". In place of "sieged". Not "siege". "Sieged". Do you understand what I am saying? Sieged is NOT a common usage, the common usage is "laid siege to". Sic is used to denote "any erroneous or archaic spelling or other nonstandard presentation." This is a nonstandard presentation. I'm not sure how clearer I can be about my position. I feel like your objection is to something that I'm not saying. You don't seem to be denying that "sieged" is a rare usage as a verb. If the common usage of sieged were used, it would say "a militia led by Ulfric Stormcloak laid siege to the gates of their capital". Yes, sieged is in the dictionary as this is used, but it is the 9th definition. 9th. "Laid siege to" actually comes BEFORE "sieged" in the dictionary. It is a non-standard presentation of the word. Jeancey (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

No, I seriously do not know why you think the definition of the word siege is the same as the word sieged. It may be the 9th definition of siege, but it is the first of sieged. I can't deny that the word is not in common usage, but the words siege and sieged are not the same. Siege is still in uncommon usage, and its meaning is quite well known, but again, that has no bearing on the word "sieged" which is not a misspelling or an archaic spelling of siege. Sieged is the word in question, which you acknowledge is correctly used, so having a sic tag based on the meaning of another word is wrong. Just so we are clear, sieged and siege are different words, you can look it up in the dictionary if you want. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:28, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Sieged is a form of siege. If the typical usage is "laid siege to" instead of "sieged", THAT is sieged. That is the word I'm talking about. It isn't another word, it is a separate form of the same word. Calling them separate words is like saying say and said are completely different words with different definitions. They aren't. they are the same word with different tenses. Sieged is the past tense of siege. There is no getting around it, which means my argument still stands. Sieged is uncommon, "Laid siege to" is common. Do you understand what I'm saying? Jeancey (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

I do not agree that comes under the realms of sic as it was designed to be used, only in a contrived sense does it deserve a sic tag, the same contrivance that would litter our pages with needless and pointless sic tags were it actually used and followed. As I read it, the consensus is against using the tag here anyway, and without an infallible argument for its inclusion being presented it will have to go. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:46, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) I don't buy the argument that being archaic means it needs a sic tag. By virtue of being a medieval fantasy game, we deal with an huge number of archaic words on the wiki. Just searching the skyrim namespace, wont appears in three different books, heretofore in two, thereon in one, betwixt in one, methinks appears in dialogue etc. If archiac words deserve a sic tag, than you could conceivably argue for any of those. --AN|L (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Trying to be as to the point as I can, assuming that 'sieged' is a word and used correctly (which Chrome doesn't recognize as a word in spellcheck, btw), I think that a sic tag should be used if people try and change 'sieged' to 'besieged' (or anything else for that matter) multiple times. •WoahBro^►talk 01:17, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) We don't need sic tags for archaic words, just for clear misspellings. An uncommon word is not the same as an incorrect word. We seem to be in general agreement that it is ambiguous whether "sieged" is a typo or if they were intentionally using the word in a way that was archaic or simply confabulated. There's a doubt, which means we should just leave it alone. Instructions in the page data around the word would deter people from attempting to alter it again. That should be enough to satisfy any practical concerns with omitting a sic tag. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 01:25, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

WoahBro, that's just the thing, nobody has ever attempted to change it to besieged ever. The edit that started all of this was the removal of the sic tag, not a word change AN|L (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

That's what I figured, I just wanted to get straight to the point without getting wrapped up in a side and involving previous dialogue; simply my thoughts. So yes, I think it should be left alone for now. •WoahBro^►talk 02:51, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Anil, it HAD a sic tag, for the longest time. It could be that people WOULD have changed it, but saw the sic tag and then didn't. Not being changed but having a sic tag doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been changed without the sic tag. If that was the case, then we could remove 90% of the sic tags on the site because no one has tried to correct them. People rarely try and correct things with a sic tag. Jeancey (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) I oppose the inclusion of the sic tag for sieged. Verbal usage of siege is not a misspelling and is mentioned in at least one major dictionary ([1]). Even if, as Jeancey puts it, “but people believe it to be, so they tend to change it”, this is not the place to correct people’s misconceptions about the word, and if too many people are changing it just protect the page. Morgoth Bauglir (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Why don't we just remove the sic for now, with the condition that if anyone ever tries to change it, it will be tagged from that point onwards? Let it demonstrate for itself whether it is a rare enough usage to cause confusion. -- Hargrimm^(T) 14:30, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

I'd accept that. Jeancey (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

That’s very easy to manipulate. Morgoth Bauglir (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Assume good faith. -- Hargrimm^(T) 17:50, 24 April 2014 (GMT)

Assuming by "tagged" you mean put a sic tag on it again, I think the premise is faulty, because as I said before, we can identify in the data that the word should not be changed without actually displaying a sic tag on the page. A sic tag would not really resolve the issue, anyways, since other people may come along and have the same issues with the sic tag that Silencer does. An instruction is more likely to resolve issues like this permanently. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 18:07, 24 April 2014 (GMT)