Talk:Pronounciation
Misspelling / variant spelling[edit]
I know that some dictionaries assert that pronounciation is a misspelling. I believe that is irrelevant; it should be evaluated from the usage of that spelling.
Mediaeval has never been considered a misspelling of medieval on Wikipedia. There are approximately 175 times more Google hits for medieval than mediaeval. There are only approximately 16 times more Google hits for pronunciation than pronounciation.
90.204.70.236 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between being a rare alternative spelling and being another spelling only because some people can't spell properly. 'Pronounciation' is a common misspelling – it doesn't matter how many people use it, it's wrong. McLerristarr / Mclay1 02:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no good reason for the word "pronounce" to change to "pronunciation" i.e. to drop an "o". That's your opinion and I'm saying you're wrong and I'll revert you.79.77.15.171 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is because that's the way it is in English. It's irrelevant whether it seems logical or not: spelling is not an opinion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- You clearly don't know how Wikipedia works. I don't need a source to prove a basic English spelling rule. However, just to prove you wrong: here. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
R unprintworthy[edit]
To editor Uanfala: rcats have two purposes: 1) to categorize redirects, and 2) to explain on a redirect page why the redirect exists, why it goes to where it goes and why the redirect is sorted to a given category. Reason #2 is why I always include either {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}, as appropriate, on all mainspace redirect pages, even those where, as in this case, the sorting is automatic within another rcat. So please restore my edit, and thank you in advance for your consideration. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oh no, please don't do that. If a redirect is already sorted as unprintworthy by a more specific rcat template, then your adding {{R unprintworthy}} achieves nothing but clutter on the redirect itself and on people's watchlists. – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- To editor Uanfala: adding the rcats that are included by a more specific rcat achieves much much more than cluttering the redirect! It achieves reason number two I cited above, which is to aid editors who come to the redirect page with necessary information/explanations. How exactly does it clutter people's watchlists? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Making an edit to a page ends up on the watchlists of editors who are watching that page. As for your point #2, that's already achieved by the more specific templated used: if there's already a tag there that says this is a misspelling, there's no need for a generic unprintworthy tag as its message is this is already implied by the other one. – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, the specific message on R unprintworthy is not included on R from misspelling's message. That is why the consensus has always been to include the unprintworthy rcat in cases like this. So it will be put back, either by you or by me, in order to be consistent with every other redirect like this one. And in the future, I would appreciate it if you would come to my talk page about any of my edits with which you disagree, rather than reverting the edit. You and I have been around far too long to be edit warring over every little thing. Thank you for that! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 20:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I see you are coming up on your ten-year anniversary in two weeks. Congratulations! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 20:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- And congratulations to you for nearing your eleventh year. You're right, we've been here long enough to know what things are worth the time. Anyway, I've asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Do redirects from typos/etc. need to additionally be tagged as unprintworthy?, so hopefully we should hear from others as well. As for this particular redirect, feel free to add any rcats you see as appropriate: I won't mind as I was only objecting to the overall practice. – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Uanfala! I'll monitor that discussion and try not to participate until other editors have done so. I've restored this usage of R unprintworthy for now. Thanks again! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- And congratulations to you for nearing your eleventh year. You're right, we've been here long enough to know what things are worth the time. Anyway, I've asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Do redirects from typos/etc. need to additionally be tagged as unprintworthy?, so hopefully we should hear from others as well. As for this particular redirect, feel free to add any rcats you see as appropriate: I won't mind as I was only objecting to the overall practice. – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Making an edit to a page ends up on the watchlists of editors who are watching that page. As for your point #2, that's already achieved by the more specific templated used: if there's already a tag there that says this is a misspelling, there's no need for a generic unprintworthy tag as its message is this is already implied by the other one. – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- To editor Uanfala: adding the rcats that are included by a more specific rcat achieves much much more than cluttering the redirect! It achieves reason number two I cited above, which is to aid editors who come to the redirect page with necessary information/explanations. How exactly does it clutter people's watchlists? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)