Appendix talk:English pronunciations of years
Add topicLatest comment: 11 years ago by -sche in topic RFC
RFD
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Any real reason to keep this? --Yair rand 01:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- None that I can see. For one thing, the title is wrong (both words I'd say). Secondly, it's not giving any pronunciations. Or at least not using IPA or SAMPA or something neutral but just written in phonetic English. I'd happily speedy delete this, but I'll at least wait to this evening. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seems potentially useful, and at least harmless in its current form. So keep, I guess. It's an interesting aspect of the spoken language that that can't be adequately covered in mainspace. For example, there's a particularly interesting pattern in Patrick O'Brien's novels, where sailors refer to "the year One" (meaning 1801) and so forth. Assuming this is real, it would be very interesting to document when it arose and when it faded. Likewise for abbreviated years like "'99". Where could this be adequately addressed, if not in an appendix such as this?
- On the other hand, I think this would need a complete reorg to really be useful. In particular, the tabular layout isn't going to work IMO; rather it needs to be broken down by paradigms, with information about the contextual restrictions of each. (Or something similar.) I agree that "pronunciation" doesn't seem quite right -- but I'm not quite sure what the proper wording would be. "Spoken form of dates"? -- Visviva 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to keep, but it would be nice if we could say which entries were candidates to have it in their See also sections. No entries link to this now. Hmmm, this looks like a job for Linkeration for one thing. This seems useful at least as a placeholder for the Appendix we wish we had, especially when properly renamed and with this and ensuing discussion on it's talk page. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
RFC
[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Pretty much needs to be entirely renamed with all the content replaced. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dealt with. - -sche (discuss) 07:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)