Talk:Subcategorization

This is a stub - it will be grow into a different page.

CSB tag

Note:CSB tagged the article as a copyvio, however the author of this page and the text at that are the same, so no copyvio. – Toon 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the verbs in the article can take additional arguments. For example,

"Luke worked [i]for Bob[/i]

 "     "    [i]with children[/i]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.209.17 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

The recent edits that have occurred here are not good. The article is becoming chaotic and jumbled. The information on thematic roles belongs in the article on thematic roles. The students working on this article should cease their efforts. I am now going to remove the changes and restore the article to its original form, which is consistent and to the point. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you feel that the edits I have made are not of quality. I assure you that we have been using a variety of sources to found these claims and information, including Chomsky, Kroger, Sportiche, and others, as noted at the bottom of the page. The article is currently at a C standing, so it stands to reason that the page does need a significant amount of editing and new information. Therefore, I would say that the page is not necessarily consistent and to the point, but currently too bare. What I've been doing on the page is still a work in progress, which is why some of the information, i.e. LOS and PP, are bare and appear jumbled. I would politely ask that you refrain from removing large chunks of information from the page, as this is counter-productive to fixing and elaborating on the page. We should be done adding information and edits to the page by the end of next week if you would like to review it and re-edit it then. I apologize if you feel that some of the information, like the thematic roles which you outlined above, contain redundant and non-essential information to this page. There is definitely validity to this, so I will now hyperlink topics, such as LOS, PP, and Thematic Roles, to their appropriate pages and cut down on using redundant information. I personally feel that the updates that have been made are not making the information more jumbled, but adding some necessary points. I believe that the way we have added and edited the page are aesthetically pleasing and well-ordered. I would furthermore argue that some information, such as Lexical Entries, are fundamental to the idea of Subcategorization and are necessary to understand in order for a reader to be able to digest information about subcategorization. --lightxcell (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litexcell (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello lightxcell,

I am concerned about your efforts here on various fronts. Above all, the quality of your work is low. You are including much information that belongs elsewhere simply to beef up your contribution. You're doing this because your grade depends on generating the impression that you did the work. The citation conventions you are using are more appropriate for a research paper and are hence likely to discourage Wikipedia readers, who value accessibility of content above all else. Your edits and additions are occurring in a haphazard way; you are not using your sandbox to first polish your contributions before you add them in. You do not know how to use quotation marks, italics, or upper case correctly, hence the overall impression is one of sloppiness. However, the main problem here does not lie with you, but rather with your instructor. That person should not be assigning/allowing Wikipedia work for a grade. I am going to begin removing your work again soon, but I will do so in steps, commenting as I go. --Tjo3ya (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tjo3ya,

Your feedback and criticisms are valuable to us. I will remove the current citations and make them inline to follow wikipedia guidelines. If there are authors or references you would suggest we look at to broaden our syntax approach and information on this page we would be happy to look at them. This is our first experience using wikipedia code, so I apologize for any incorrect wikipedia formatting errors. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you. --lightxcell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litexcell (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tjo3ya,

We will cease further edits on this page. We apologize for any trouble this has caused you. Take care. --litexcell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litexcell (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SKS 2015

Hi. The article contains several references of SKS 2015. Does, someone know the corresponding author name and article title? Austrasdata (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those references were added by student-SPA Litexcell, discussed in #Recent edits. Maybe Tjo3ya would know the (SKS 2015) work, or if its best to remove them? Tule-hog (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]