Difference between revisions 11580380 and 11581371 on enwiki

[[/old talk1]]

-----
#Are the pronunciations in italics and brackets to the right of each word the correct pronunciations, or the mis-pronunciations?  This isn't clear from the text.  Ideally, the article would state first the `correct' pronunciation, followed by a list of mis-pronunciations with indications as to their likely regions (because a lot of the words in the list seem, to me, to be mispronounced only in certain parts of the world, rather than by all Anglophones.  In fact, at the risk o(contracted; show full)

:This article is not in the context of <i>anything</i> encyclopedic. It is only about pronunciation, and as such belongs in the Wiktionary. This does not mean that it will be lost, just moved.--[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] 18:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
⏎
⏎
::This article is not a usage guide, or slang or idiom guide. It is a list of words of disputed pronunciation with information about the disputed pronunciations. There are tons and tons of articles on Wikipedia which consist of little more than lists of trivial minutiae. The fact that the trivial minutiae in this article happens to be linguistic in nature does not mean that it should necessarily be removed from Wikipedia. The "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy was invented to avoid a situation where Wikipedia is full of one-sentence articles defining terms. Use of that policy to justify removing a long, old article which has been contributed to by a number of contributors over a period of years is a perversion of the original intent of that policy. I of course have no problem with this information ''also'' being at Wiktionary, but there is no consensus-supported policy that that justifies this article being removed from Wikipedia. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 19:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)