Talk:Glossary of rhetorical terms
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Start
- 2 AFD debate link
- 3 Move to Wiktionary
- 4 Possible Merge
- 5 properly linkable
- 6 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
- 7 Repetition
- 8 Not helpful to the seeker after knowledge
- 9 Move to glossary of rhetorical terms
- 10 Time for house cleaning?
- 11 I'm adding Buzzword
- 12 Sources for future article expansion
I just started this page as part of our rhetoric wikiportal. Please feel free to add terms or edit the formatting as you see fit. --Matt 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary
I see the article has a "Move to Wiktionary" template. Though I agree that the individual definitions should be copied to Wiktionary, I think the value of this article is to inform the reader what rhetorical terms there are and allow him/her to select the appropriate term for a particular purpose on the basis of brief definitions (with links to discussions on things like zeugma and sysllepsis). Personally, I have frequently wanted to use a term and forgotten what it was called. I have also sometimes wanted to look up two terms to see which one is most applicable and found useful information that I had not been looking for. I am thinking, for instance, about all the different ways to achieve a particular effect by not using the normal (literal-meaning) word for a specific concept(metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, litotes, . . .) or unusual word order or word combinations (including repetition) for effect (alliteration, anadiplosis, anaphora, anistrophe, auxesis, chiasmus, epiphora, . . .). -- So I support a copy, but oppose subsequent deletion (which "move" would imply). --Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a pattern. See Category talk:Glossaries. Rfrisbietalk 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion - Keep this page on Wikipedia. Glossaries on Wikipedia serve a different function than glossaries on Wiktionary. That is, Wikipedia glossaries serve Wikipedia, because they are Wikipedia linkified. What good is a Wiktionary glossary if you are looking for Wikipedia articles to read? Glossaries on Wikipedia are essential learning aids in the context of Wikipedia in that they help learn the terminology right here where you need it and assist in selecting and going to the articles you wish to read on a subject. Quit getting rid of these useful pages. The Transhumanist 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — LlywelynII 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
A merge with Stylistic device and/or Figure of speech might be a appropriate.I see a merge of those two articles has been proposed. At least, there should be links to those articles, in my opinion. --Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
make this properly linkable directly to each word. Wandalstouring 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
|This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What about repetition on the list?
Not helpful to the seeker after knowledge
I was just writing a little piece of invective and employed a favorite device of mine. Here's a made-up example of it:
"I could mention that my opponent has three wives, but instead out of politeness I won't say a word on the subject."
This list doesn't help me at all to find out what the technical name for this device is. I'm quite sure I'm not the first person in history to use it, so it's there somewhere, but which is it?
ISTM that this list would be better if the entries were also grouped by type of device. For example, under Syntactical Devices you would include those rearrangements of word order sometimes used in rhetoric.
Regrettably, the world no longer has professors of rhetoric to sort this out, but if anyone reading has the necessary expertise to create such a categorization, they would be doing rhetorically minded Wikipedia readers a service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- First, it's apophasis .
- Second, I found that by CTRL+H for "not" on this same page. "Deny" would've worked faster.
- Third, I can't speak to your personal taste but apophasis is incredibly obvious and more likely to backfire than prove persuasive.
- Last, ISTM that you're a little miffed by your own inability to search for things. What actual categories would you propose to employ that would help people search for their terms? Short of building a Google-sized database, I don't see how you could improve much on what we have here. Short examples would make the page at least twice as large and (while they might help people better understand the terms) the variety of expression English has means they wouldn't serve the search purpose you're seeking. — LlywelynII 13:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Move to glossary of rhetorical terms
Time for house cleaning?
I'm concerned that a very large number of these terms are unsourced and unlinked. Generally, we need verification for information on Wikipedia; in this case we need verification that 1) the terms provided are actually commonly used in the field, enough to justify inclusion in a glossary and 2) that the definitions are "accurate" (in the sense that they match the way the words are commonly used in the field). While it would be awesome if someone with access to reference works could start verifying this, I think that absent such a volunteer, we should trim the list down only to blue-linked or referenced items. Is anyone going to object if I start doing that ? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, I personally think that the list also has usefulness in a comprehensive form and that the colouring of the "links" is of further use regarding an indication of the currency of various titles. I don't object but am cautious. Perhaps links to Wiktionary might also be added (a red Wiktionary link may certainly spell trouble). This is not to say that cleanup isn't needed. Less relevant listed items (linked or not) may also be suitable targets. (I am no expert on rhetoric so treat these comments as opinion). Gregkaye (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- On a page like this, I really think a link (to a page which is itself well-enough sourced) should be fine but unsourced and unlinked is bad. Removing info is also bad: such terms should be moved here to the talk page for future reinclusion. We should never link directly to Wiktionary in our running text; if the terms are not notable enough for inclusion, they should simply be left out. — LlywelynII 03:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think so, but maybe it could fall under some combination of rhetoric with how-to-give-sales-pitches. — LlywelynII 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sources for future article expansion
Long list of terms here, including some currently omitted, such as synthesis (not in the Hegelian sense) and compositio (former anglicized form, "composition"). — LlywelynII 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)