Difference between revisions 11582852 and 11618043 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)eted). 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)
⏎
⏎
::::Perhaps then what is needed is a "copy to Wiktionary" template that indicates that this content is a good candidate to be content at Wiktionary without making any implications (real or imagined) that the content does not belong at Wikipedia. I can't really reply to any of your other points because it's not clear to me what the difference between "triviality" and a "lack of encyclopedicity" is. Also, I'm curious which entries you believe lack "encyclopedic context" and are simply "idiomatic pronunciations". [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 20:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)