From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notice Given[edit]

Large, capitalized red text is as annoying as it is wholly unnecessary. Anwyay, I'm wondering exactly what "Poltical Commentary" means. Nothing in the article can remotely be described as 'opinion' or 'commentary'; the body text is properly quoted and sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines. As far as WP:DICDEF goes, Wikipedia defines 'words' that represent ideas/ concepts/ thoughts/ emotions/ moods/ typologies-- see Snob. Revolutionaryluddite 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep I completely agree with Revolutionaryluddite. This is a well written article, that lends insight into some of the modern history around the word snippy. It is not POV with respect to Bush (who I suspect was Revolutionaryluddite's favorite) or Gore (who was my favorite). As Revolutionaryluddite said, what exactly does political commentary mean, and how does it differ from modern political history? (The large, capitalized, annoying red text, meant that it should be added to the article page and not the talk page. However, now that you have met one of the conditions, it does not need to be on either page.)
If Escape Orbit still thinks this does not meet Wikipedia's standards, I would like to hear more detailed arguments as to why. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
My problem is that the article is named and starts out as a dictionary definition, then goes into a lengthy single example. Which leave the impression that the article was created simply to make a point about the example, not the title subject. As it stands anyone would be justified in adding their own examples of "Snippy" that have nothing to do with your example. Is that your intention? Perhaps you can think of a better title? (And the large red text was only there because you copied the prod template onto the talk page). --Escape Orbit 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think anyone who could find similarly prominent uses of the word snippy should add their own examples. As it is, this is arguably the most famous use of the word. This is a new article, and it could no doubt be improved upon, but I think the way to improve it is, well, to improve it (such as by changing "national" to "United States"). If you have other specific recommendations as to how to accomplish this, I'm sure they would be well received. For example, do you have a suggestion for changing the order in which the presentation occurs? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll start by splitting the example from the definition, making it clearer that there's room for more if wished. --Escape Orbit 01:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just move wholesale to the wiktionary? any reason to keep it here in the encyclopedia at all? I propose we remove it now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... or is the popularity of the term in recent events inappropriate for the wiktionary? I could see that perhaps the notability of the term and references to SNL and the like might not be appropriate for that domain. Let me retract my proposal. Hope nobody gets snippy about that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)