From Yahoo! Style we get bad Santas — spelled with an unnecessary (and incorrect) apostrophe:
Someday the writers and editors at Yahoo! Style might actually display some knowledge of English grammar. This is not that day:
The plural of a name that doesn’t end in S is just the name with an added S, like this: the Clintons, the Obamas. (Adding an apostrophe makes the name a possessive, not a plural.) If the name ends in S, make it plural by adding an ES. But under no circumstances does the plural involve an apostrophe. Unless you’re writing about Mr. and Mrs. Apostrophe; then they’re the Apostrophes.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for the presidency, but you wouldn’t know it if you read this on Yahoo! Style:
As a common noun, democratic refers to a democracy or people in general. But if you’re referring to the political party in the U.S., it’s Democratic, with a big D.
Speaking of a big D, that’s the grade I’d give this writer for coming up with Clintons’s. I’d be appalled if I hadn’t seen that error so often on Yahoo!. It seems Yahoo! writers (and their editors, if they have them) don’t know that the plural of Clinton is Clintons and the possessive of Clintons is Clintons‘.
If well-educated editors overlooked this error on Yahoo! Style, their friends’ and families’ faces would fall to the floor:
I’m assuming that the friends and families (there’s probably more than one family involved) have separated faces, so there needs to be an apostrophe after the S on both friends’ and families’.
It’s hard to beat this for the number of errors in a single sentence:
I can’t explain why the Yahoo! Style writer included a registered trademark symbol with a product name, unless she’s under the illusion that she has to protect a trademark. Which brings me to the question: Why didn’t she recognize Velcro as a registered trademark, too? Because that would be as wrong as not capitalizing Velcro.
Don’t you wish we could all be flies on the wall when the writer discusses this with her editor? What would her argument be? Oh, never mind. I forgot: Yahoo! doesn’t believe in editors.
All writing serves a purpose. And the purpose of this article from Yahoo! Style may be to illustrate what not to do. First lesson: If you’re including names in your article, spell them correctly. It’s not enough to just misspell them in the same way. If you’re writing about Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Google her name.
Second, if you’re writing about editors-in-chief, don’t capitalize the title and don’t look like an idiot by forming the plural incorrectly. And make sure you’re confident enough in your English to include the article the in “in the second row” and “in the third row.”
Don’t follow the example of this gal. She’s nothing if not consistent. When she misspells a name like Stella Tennant, she sticks with it. None of this silly Googling a name to check the spelling:
Finally we encounter this gem, a sterling example of what not to do:
The takeaway: Read everything you write before you publish it. Read everything you write before you publish it.
I know that paparazzi can seem to be everywhere, but is it really possible that one photographer took all the pictures for this article on Yahoo! Movies?
It’s possible, but not likely. What is likely: The writer thinks that paparazzo is a plural, meaning photographers. It is not. It is the singular of paparazzi.
When I was a kid, the only F-word we used when to express anger or frustration by using an adjective, was flippin‘. “I don’t want your flippin’ Hula Hoop!” I might yell. Or, “Get your flippin’ hands off my Howdy Doody puppet!” So, of course, I assume that the Yahoo! Sports writer was using flipping as a euphemism for another word beginning with F:
Does anyone really want a pitcher’s flipping bats? And which pitcher? I guess a pitcher’s flipping bats are more desirable than pitchers flipping bats. That could be dangerous.