Talk:Grey literature

Grey or Gray

Who uses "gray"? According to Wiktionary, even the Brits use grey.[1] Can I change the title? II | (t - c) 08:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Even the Brits". What a disgracefully bigotted, and flawed, comment. The above contributor should consider that a high proportion of "Brits" are English, and therefore how they spell any English word is valid and can not be so belittled ... the English spelling of English words is pre-eminent over corrupted variants of the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.160 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a tough call. A google search yields about the same number of results for both "gray literature" and "grey literature". It might be better to use one consistently throughout, but then add a section acknowledging the other convention. Thoughts anyone? (Rboesch (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

I think publications on the topic most often use grey instead of gray. My suggestion would be to change the title. Chicon59 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From usage, Google search turns up over 900,000 for "grey literature" and 316,000 for "gray literature" so on that basis should be changed to Grey. Another basis would be the origins. Did the term appear first in UK (then it'd be grey) or the US (probably gray), or somewhere else? Can anyone answer that? Daveofthenewcity (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is now pretty consistent in its use of "grey", apart from the title. I'm going to move it. GrindtXX (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not allowed to move it, so I've made a formal move request. GrindtXX (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad style/tone

Parts of this read like a speech or essay, not an encyclopedia article. For example:

Internet transforms the whole value chain of publishing. The Web offers new tools and channels for producing, disseminating and assessing scientific literature. Author and reader, producer and consumer change their information behaviour. We definitely left the Gutenberg era. So what about the definition of grey literature? Is it still empirically sound?

This should be fixed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Climategate

What does this have to do with grey literature? Perhaps that we shouldn't be looking at emails as sources? It's unclear. I plan to remove this from the section if there is no discussion. Buttonwillowite (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

Can somebody justify the inclusion of the picture of Admont Abbey library? Is it supposed to be a library holding a significantly high proportion of grey literature – in which case shouldn't that be explained?

I also have a problem with the inclusion of the title page of Kierkegaard's university thesis. I'm unfamiliar with the procedures for submitting theses in mid-C19 Denmark, but this looks to me like a published version, and not grey literature at all.

GrindtXX (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now replaced the Admont Abbey pic with one of the British Library, which seems marginally more relevant. Still not happy with Kierkegaard, though. GrindtXX (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gray literature → Grey literature – The "grey" spelling is widespread (perhaps dominant), and the body of the article has consistently used "grey" for some time without challenge. GrindtXX (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as uncontroversial. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. Many organizations use "grey literature" in their names - Grey Literature Network Service, Grey Literature International Steering Committee, European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, whereas there seem to be no articles on Wikipedia for "gray literature" organizations.
  2. Consider Wikipedia:Search engine test and WP:GHITS. "Grey literature" is better because it returns 237,000 hits on Google Scholar whereas "gray literature" returns 9,000. Similarly, a standard Google search returns 4,000,000 hits for "grey literature" and 200,000 hits for "gray literature".
  3. "Gray" is one United States spelling which is sometimes used along with "grey", but "grey" is the only spelling used in Europe and India and accounts for the preference in most of the world and history. "Grey" is better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong ENGVAR oppose; the article was originally written in American English using the spelling "gray" uniformly ([2]) as far as I can tell. The spelling should be changed back and the move should not happen, unless we have good reason to IAR the rule on English varieties. Red Slash 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:COMMONALITY, the next section after WP:ENGVAR. It allows us to use the more globally recognized variant without having to "ignore all rules". Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per RedSlash, WP:ENGVAR. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support the term appears to have originated in UK (earliest use I can find in GB is Frederick George Bailey Morality and Expediency - 1977 Page 60 "the man who publishes in the grey literature" - the term "gray literature" does not appear in US texts until 1988). From Jan 1 - Dec 31 2010 in Google Books the UK spelling outnumbered US spelling 2-1, despite the larger number of US published books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But do we follow where the term was invented, or the variety of the first major contributor? I'm pretty sure it was someone in England that first came up with the English term "colour", yet we use the American spelling; the Ferris wheel was invented in America, but the spelling in the article is primarily British English. It doesn't matter who invented the term, does it? What we go by is the first major contributor. Red Slash 08:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a specific technical term and as above From Jan 1 - Dec 31 2010 in Google Books the UK spelling outnumbered US spelling 2-1, despite the larger number of US published books. And as pointed out WP:ENGVAR doesn't apply when European, International and US organizations are also using "Grey" in this context. Both spellings exist in the US. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per ENGVAR. The article has always been titled with the American spelling. Calidum Sistere 03:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"This article has always been [here]" is a weak argument, per WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Unchallenged material. Please take a look at WP:COMMONALITY, which is the next section after WP:ENGVAR. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I had hoped that this proposal would generate opinions from editors who knew a bit about the subject matter, rather than just wikilawyers crying WP:ENGVAR. As far as I can see, this is not a simple British/American divide, and the term "grey literature" is widely used in North America as well as Europe. Here, for example, is a bibliography produced by a committee of the American Library Association (admittedly in 2003) that consistently uses "grey" in its title, introduction and synopses, and where 44 bibliographical items use "grey" in their titles as opposed to just 4 that use "gray". "Grey" is also used by the Grey Literature Network Service, The International Journal on Grey Literature, and the International Conference on Grey Literature. GrindtXX (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per obvious dominance demonstrated in examples by Blue Rasberry. And FWIW, I'm British but use American orthography by choice. — Scott • talk 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support like GrindtXX and Blue Rasberry explained. The spelling with "e" is accepted in the US and the rest of the world, while the spelling "a" is just used in the US. --Surtalnar (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. While gray is an am english word, gray literature is not commonly used even in am english.[3] Apteva (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Both gray and grey are used in the US, and grey is universally used in other Anglophonic countries (UK, Aus, NZ, SA, Can). While WP:ENGVAR specifically avoids prescribing usage, it definitely allows for community-based consensus (such as the discussion here) over slavish preservation of the spelling first used in the article. When one spelling is nearly universal in world-wide English usage and the other is used only in one variant (and not even universally there), I see a compelling argument for overturning the spelling to the more globally recognized variant. Those arguing WP:ENGVAR as a basis for a firm opposition need to continue reading down to the next section (WP:COMMONALITY), which reads (in part): "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles." Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – the engvar/retain argument here is not up to the commonality challenge, since grey literature is very common, probably in the majority, even in AmE, according to google books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Malin-grey literature

What is "malin-grey literature"? I was left hanging on that word.

The only things I could find out there were articles of people equally intrigued and doing the same Google-diving as I did (e.g., "Malin-grey, what are you?").

Apparently there once was a "Malin-grey literature" section in this entry. Why was it removed? Nevertheless, a self-reference alone won't do.

Is there a minimally trusted source regarding its definition? If not, I'd suggest we scrapped this obscure/enigmatic reference. Fstorino (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514171345/http://www.scienceaccelerator.gov/ to http://www.scienceaccelerator.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)