Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pronoun: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:02, 5 March 2015 editDarkfrog24 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,724 edits →RfC: The MoS and the generic he: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 00:14, 6 March 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Pronoun/Archive 1) (botNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:
:I see some was vandalism, but the unsourced info should not have been added back in, without citations. I've removed it, and fixed the vandalism, . — ''']''' (]) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) :I see some was vandalism, but the unsourced info should not have been added back in, without citations. I've removed it, and fixed the vandalism, . — ''']''' (]) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
::Unsourced content was added back in, again, here . This article should be trimmed of all unsourced content, and replaced with appropriately cited material. — ''']''' (]) 04:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ::Unsourced content was added back in, again, here . This article should be trimmed of all unsourced content, and replaced with appropriately cited material. — ''']''' (]) 04:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

== Original research problems ==

Tagged with original research problems, as the majority of this article is wholly unsourced, and therefore violates ].

Cheers,

— ''']''' (]) 03:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

== Unsourced section tags were removed ==

, unsourced section tags were removed.

This article has multiple subsections that have zero (0) sources whatsoever.

I added {{tl|unsourcedsect}} tags to those sections.

Those tags were removed inappropriately.

Cheers,

— ''']''' (]) 04:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


== Note on unsourced content in article == == Note on unsourced content in article ==

Revision as of 00:14, 6 March 2015

The contents of the Pronominal page were merged into Pronoun on August 6, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
WikiProject iconLinguistics: Theoretical Linguistics Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Article needs citation improvements

This article needs citation improvements, throughout the page.

I removed some unsourced info added by an IP, at DIFF.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I see some was vandalism, but the unsourced info should not have been added back in, without citations. I've removed it, and fixed the vandalism, diff. — Cirt (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced content was added back in, again, here diff. This article should be trimmed of all unsourced content, and replaced with appropriately cited material. — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Note on unsourced content in article

NOTE: I won't be removing this material another time, or tagging this article anymore. But the article as it stands is in pretty poor shape with some determined individual who keeps adding back in completely unsourced content. — Cirt (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not hard to find sources for the first section - after all, it was basically an annotated list of articles. The views of different schools is a much more difficult proposition. I have tried to find some sort of survey article or book that summarizes these theories, without success. As for pronominals, I'm a little skeptical that the term is used very much. I am going to change the tagging accordingly. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pronominals

I have searched for uses of the term "pronominal" and can't find any that match the discussion in Pronoun#Pronominals. If none can be found, this section should be removed. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: The MoS and the generic he

A conversation about the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style's stance on the generic he and gender-neutral language that started on this talk page has progressed to two RfCs at the village pump. Further opinions are welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: