Difference between revisions 11581371 and 11582852 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)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)
⏎
:::First off, I partly agree with you. I certainly don't think it should be deleted, or I would have listed it (where not a single person would vote for its deletion, I think). I do think that its contents should at the very least be moved to Wiktionary as well as being here. (note, the "move to Wiktionary" template does not say it will be deleted). Having said that, unless this article can provide some kind of encyclopedic context to many of the entries, they are simply idiomatic pronunciations. By the way, appealing to other articles ''you'' view as less worthy is simply throwing out a red herring, especially as I do not dispute the article because of triviality, but because of lack of encyclopedicity (which I think should be a word :) ). I hope I am making myself clear.--[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] 19:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)