Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:Common English usage misconceptions. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread from Talk:Common English usage misconceptions. |
||
Line 71:
:You cite O'Conner and Kellerman to say that preposition stranding was in use in Anglo-Saxan times. Doesn't that mean my addition was supported by sources? Anyway, it did sound a bit awkward so I'm not going to make a big deal about this one. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 22:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
::I didn't remove the sentence. I just delinked it from sources that didn't necessarily say support it. And Mr Swordfish moved the sentence to a ___location where it fits in the prose nicely. If I might say, that's what improving articles here is all about. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
== Dictionaries ==
It might be useful at this point to add a separate portion to the references section called "Dictionaries" since they are listed in the notes section but not in the reference section. Short citations with ref tags will bring the new entry in line with the rest of the article. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I follow. Do you want the dictionaries that were combined into a single reference to again be separate references, just in a different section? And should we cite "irregardless", "funnest", "conversate", etc as all coming from that dictionary? Or just cite the dictionary and let the reader figure out what words are in it?
:I misunderstood another thing too. It seems that while I was waiting for you to edit my sandbox (Mr. Swordfish), you were waiting for me to give permission or something. I don't have a problem with most of the edits you performed in the end. What you called "pejorative verbiage" I think is just a statement of a fact, and some of the citations you removed would've been enjoyable reads for people who look at cited blogs in depth, but these aren't important. What's important is that the reader now has appropriate context before reading a bold statement like "irregardless is a word". If "irregardless" and not "regardless" were a word in Anglo-Saxon, this would be truly surprising and would justify a point-blank statement like that. However, when I first read the entry, all it did was repeat what I knew about "irregardless" while adding that my point of view (that there is a place for prescriptivism) is pretentious. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 07:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::I think the current version, as adjusted, is fine. "Irregardless" fits well in the prose as it stands. The misconception is noted and follows immediately with an example to clarify. And irregardless seems to serve that purpose well.
::As far as the dictionaries, the formatting of the references is now uneven. It's not a showstopper, but it degrades the quality of the article, if only slightly. To be consistent, the same sources are used, but edited to be "short cites" in the text, e.g., <nowiki>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 21.</nowiki> For that to work, the full citations for the dictionaries should be added to the Bibliography section with a reftag added at the end of the citation template, e.g., <nowiki>|ref=CK09}}</nowiki>.
::The dictionaries could simply be added to the Bibliography in alphabetical order; but, I suggest it might be a bit better to add a separate sub-section to the Bibliography called "Dictionaries" to separate them into their own categories. That's not unprecedented here at Wikipedia and I think it would be useful for readers to see what dictionaries are used to reference this article without having to sort through the Bibliography. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 08:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Ok, I created the relevant bibliography section. Just to be clear... you think the two "mega-citations" we have now should be replaced by six citations? One refers to the 11 dictionaries that include "irregardless", one refers to the 9 dictionaries that include "thusly", etc? [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 00:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm in favor of lumping citations under one endnote separated by a colon in the manner of footnotes 4 and 14 of [[Sentence spacing]]. I'd recommend adding the word referenced in quotation marks after the short cite. It might look like the below, with the title hyperlinked by the short cite formatting to the Bibliography entry.
::::*Oxforddictionaries.com, "Mentee"; Collinsdictionary.com, "Mentee"; Allwords.com, "Thusly"; etc.
::::However, each of the current citations in the endnotes can be retained. Modifying them is just more consistent with the rest of the notes. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I changed endnote 53 to short cites as an example. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think that presentation is a good one. I'm in favor of whatever makes the article more readable and consolidating citations helps improve readability; when the ratio of text to footnotes reaches a certain threshold all those superscripts starts to obscure the prose. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 20:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
| |||