Talk:Please
![]() | A fact from Please appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Potential source
[edit]The politeness markers please, thank you, and sorry provide a raft of problems for lexicographical treatment. Grammatically, they fall between categories. As pragmatic elements, they defy easy definition, and variations in their usage are subtle. ... This study investigates how please, thank you, thanks, and sorry are treated in thirteen monolingual dictionaries of English, finding variation in (a) the extent to which their interactional functions are covered, (b) the types of information contained in definitions, and (c) the (sometimes very subtle) ways in which information about the potential (im)polite effects of these words is communicated. M. Lynne Murphy, "Defining your P's and Q's: Describing and Prescribing Politeness in Dictionaries", Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, Volume 40, Issue 2, (2019).
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- ... that in some situations, asking please may yield worse results? Source: See article
- Reviewed: Mount Brandon
Moved to mainspace by BD2412 (talk). Nominated by Buidhe (talk) at 04:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
Article was created on 14 April, is long enough, appears neutral, cites sources inline, no apparent copyvio. Hook is interesting and meets requirements, it has an offline reference but seems credible and no other causes for concern so accepted in good faith. QPQ done. Whizz40 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)