Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Language/English/Grammar

This page is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles

Userboxes

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Language/English/Grammar is part of WikiProject Userboxes. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the userboxes system. WikiProject Userboxes itself is an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles and templates related to the userbox system, used on many users' pages. We need all your help, so join in today!UserboxesWikipedia:WikiProject UserboxesTemplate:WikiProject UserboxesUserboxes articles

Swastika

we shouldn't have a user tag that has a swatiska on it...bad form! JamieJones 17:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a free world. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and not only because I created it. :P Is there a way to put it to a vote?

--Roofus 21:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No - just put it back in. It's only if WP:3RR comes into it that we need votes an all that nonsense. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, isn't the Swastika banned in several Europeon countries?--Kross ^Talk 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Swastika is a symbol of peace. The Nazi Swastika is considered a symbol of hatred. In this example, the user hates bad grammar. Proclaiming the Nazi Swastika is banned in countries like France where there is still considerable ill-feeling... but Prince Harry was photographed wearing the very same swastika last year. To get rid of it is PC got mad. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the Nazi swastika is banned not only in France, and an EU-wide ban has been considered not only once... I personally find it offensive, but am personally in favour of letting free speech overrule the laws against Nazism in Austria, so I won't vote or anything. —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The swastika is too controversial a symbol. I say remove it. -Grick(^{talk to me!})

I agree. Seeing the Nazi swastika displayed on someone's user page is likely to be upsetting to lots of people. --Angr (t·c) 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks the for the discussion. What about "user grammar-fascist" or something similar? The spirit of the tag is preserved, without using a symbol some would be uncomfortable with? JamieJones 21:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the horror of Fascism and Nazism is diluted and the victims of Fascist and Nazi regimes dishonored by throwing the words around in a jocular fashion. Why not just say what we mean: "This user is pedantic about grammar"? --Angr (t·c) 23:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but surely it's the user's choice... if a user wants to be controversial and put it on his/her userpage then surely it's their right to do so. If the swastika had been banned then that'd be a different matter, but the fact that there remains a bitter aftertaste in many nations (particularly in Europe) should not necessarily mean the removal of the box. I must say that I personally wouldn't use it... but I'm an absolute advocate of free speech.

Deano (Talk) 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it angles to the right, it's the abhorrent swastika. If it angles to the left, it's the Eastern spiritual symbol and chinese character. Peace. (MuzikJunky 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It doesn't matter which way it angles, both variants have common sightings in Indian and Chinese scriptures and artwork. This is entirely superficial however as the point of the swastika in this infobox is clearly to denote the 'grammar fascist' status of the user. The swastika should not be used for this purpose as in this case it certainly has fascist Nazi connotations. In response to someone's earlier post here:

"Why not? It's a free world. Image:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)"

I would like to reply with the comment that we do not live in a free world by any means of the phrase. An example of this is how laws regarding 'inciting racial hatred' have priority over freedom of speech. This especially comes into play on Wikipedia as it is not the encylopaedia's purpose to cause offense. You have to remember that Wikipedia is an International website and therefore US laws regarding freedom of speech do not come into play here. Especially in a community effort such as this it is entirely irresponsible to post such an image as the swastika in a comical scenario. Freedom of speech may exist for portions of the Internet such as personal blogs but certainly not on websites such as Wikipedia. The use of the swastika in this context is really not appropriate and should be replaced by a less offensive image. Oliverwk talk 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

split infinitive

how about one for split infinitives? -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Angr (t·c) 23:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4.SS-Division (mot.) Wikingpädie

What does this mean? Obviously, "4.SS-Division" is a military unit, but what about "(mot.)"? And what does "Wikingpädie" mean? -- ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it mean "Vikingpedia" as a Nazi play on "Wikipedia" ("Wikipädie" in German) mge kelly 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-AmE-0 doesn't work

Aforementioned doesn't work in the {{Babel-1|-AmE-0}} notation. Normally you remove "User " including the space, but since there's not space there, just a dash, it doesn't work, with or without the dash. Retodon8 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know... {{User AmE-0}} was already taken so I put it on the next best alternative... kinda forgot about the Babel format. If you can think of a suitable alternative then let me know and I'll implement it.

Deano (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-Neutral

Who deleted the anti gender-neutral box? And why did the keep the pro one? --Roofus 20:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Physchim62 deleted it as part of an ongoing campaign against userboxes that use the word "anti-" in their name, under the assumption that the new template deletion criterion for "polemic or inflammatory userboxes" means that any opinion on any topic that isn't a "support" or "positive" view qualifies for speedy-deletion. You'll probably have to list for it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates to get it undeleted. -Silence 20:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user would like to see a userbox along the lines of "This user does not use the word "gender" when he's talking about a being's sex." Or some such. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 01:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who & Whom

I use "who" and "whom" properly, and I also use gender-neutral language. Can we do something about the fact that the "User whom: Yes" description includes the use of the universal "he"??? Argh! -hyperjoy7

Fewer & Less

There are far fewer people who know when to use each of these than you'd expect. Can we have a box for that? Teraspawn 12:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a comment regarding the userbox against preposition stranding. While I am generally against preposition stranding, I believe that preposition stranding is generally acceptable usage in the case of a verbal idiom, such as put up with, where the phrase loses its meaning when the words are split. Although using put up with as an example on the preposition userbox is amusing, I wonder if it is entirely accurate in terms of preposition usage. Comments, anyone? Abhorsen327 12:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of what Winston wrote ("This is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put") re split infinitives, but what's preposition stranding? kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their, There, & They're

I see these words mixed up all the time. There simply must be a userbox to encourage the correct usage of these words. Justacsnerd 07:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Why th don't you write one then?!?!? mge kelly 07:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know how. And it took me six hours to figure it out. But okay. Done now. Justacsnerd 20:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I like it! BarkerJr 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user thinks that the third person singular ought to be he/she/it/thay (genitive his/her/its/thair) so that the plural they (genitive their) can be distinguished from the singular in spelling. ;-) Evertype 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English spelling

…is the same as Oxford spelling as far as I know. Evertype 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptivist/Prescriptivist

For those of us who would prefer to keep things tidier than a userbox for every blessed controversial point of grammar would allow, how 'bout some general boxes for "This user is a linguistic descriptivist/prescriptivist"? Kyriosity 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin name in italics

Can someone make a userbox to show our hatred of non-italicized species name, (see Latin name). And to show how we italicize (sorry if that is'nt a word) every single Genus or Species name we see. Pro bug catcher 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern American English userbox

I was going to use that userbox but it gives the impression that just because the user speaks some Southern American English that they use the words y'all and southron. The SouAmE words I do use, that I can think of at the moment that is, are hun'erd instead of hundred, reckon instead of figure, 'em instead of them, 'im instead, '-in instead of -ing and sometimes "y'all". An appropriate userbox would be one that says SouAmE on the side and "This user speaks Southern American English". Thank you- Faustus Tacitus 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The data are plural

Added a template on proper use of plurals of Latin origin. Anyone with me on these phenomena? Unimaginative Username 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, help me add a box, please?

I made a user box for quotation-mark abuse—Template:Quotation-Mark Abuse—but I don’t know how to add it to the list properly. Please help. Peace. (MuzikJunky 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Same here - one for affect/effect . . . and especially one for "This user knows the difference between an opening single quote and a leading ’postrophe." Or words to that effect. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 01:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then/Than

I notice a lot of individuals get "then & than" confused, probably because 'than' is often de-stressed as "thən" in colloquial speech. Nagelfar 17:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss South Carolina Userbox.. not nice

User:Alpha Omicron/Miss SC

| That's just mean. Is it really necessary?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? No Double Negative-Related Userboxes?

I really need your help. I am finally adding userboxes to my user page, but I can't find any userboxes about opposing double negatives. I really need one. How about one that says:

"This user hates double negatives cluttering up the English language. He/she wants to stomp it out no matter what it takes."

Thank you very much. Typingwestern015 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to knock one up yourself. You'll find {{userbox}} pretty helpful. I always find it amusing to use an example of the grammatical issue in the userbox itself. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? I finally did it! Typingwestern015 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add text/create an alternate userbox?

Hi, I found a userbox that I like, but I want to add some text to it or create an alternate version. How may I go about this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thou/Ye

I'd like to ressurect thou and ye, but not for the T-V distinction. So I altered it in my User Page and ye might look at it, copy it here and share with me if ye want to.Wisapi (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subj

I'm in favor the following line be added to this template: "If I were you, I would use it and suggest that someone else use it too".Wisapi (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adverbs

Shouldn't there be one (or several) for the biggest recent deterioration of the language, the disappearence of the adverb? That is, not ending words with "-ly"?Mzk1 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence re: this supposed disappearance? I haven't seen anything about it. Also, on a side note, you may want to use the term 'change' rather than 'deterioration' - there are strong arguments from linguists against understanding linguistic change as deterioration, since there is no reason to brand the language that is the product of the change as 'inferior' or 'lesser' when compared to the origin language, other than parochialism. - Mgcsinc (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I'm not talking Wikipedia rules, just personal observation. Almost everybody I speak to leaves out the "ly" at the end of the word, turning the adverb into an adjective. And you can be parochial in userboxes.19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Mzk1 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., here's a good example. Just got this fixed in Book of Daniel, a site with many interested, scholarly people. In spite of that, this appeared at the top:

The book is written part in Hebrew and part in Aramaic

Of course, it should be partly, not part, and when I asked someone fixed it.Mzk1 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the basis of the above, I added the Lost Adverb userbox to misc. The last word is intentionally incorrect. I hope someone likes it.Mzk1 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

At some point soon, I'm going to try to reorganize all of these - separate the general ones from the specific controversies, put the specific controversies into categories, etc. Does anyone object? - Mgcsinc (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made some inroads. Anyone is welcome to help out or second-guess me (here, or by direct edit). - Mgcsinc (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singular they

I am confused over whether the singular they should be used with or without the definite article (some userboxes use it and others without). It might vary with dialect but I am not sure. Tk420 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated at singular they, it is not necessary to use the definite article when referring to it. Whilst it is proper to provide an article when using the isolated word singular, it is not necessary in this case because the two words singular they function as a single term. In particular, your recent changes to various templates did not properly account for the use-mention distinction. That is, those templates refer to the term, singular they, rather than describing a particular instance of the singular "they".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and relevance of the singular-they and gender-neutrality sections

I'm not sure what the etiquette is about cc'ing relevant threads in other discussions here; but I decided to open this topic on the WikiProject talk-page; some of you watching this page may find it relevant. (= — ELLIOTTCABLE (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]