Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page 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!

Contents 1 Swastika 2 split infinitive 3 4.SS-Division (mot.) Wikingpädie 4 User-AmE-0 doesn't work 5 Gender-Neutral 6 Who & Whom 7 Fewer & Less 8 {{user prepositions:no}} 9 Their, There, & They're 10 Canadian English spelling

[edit] Swastika

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

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

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)

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

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

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. Image:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] split infinitive

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

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Gender-Neutral

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

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] {{user prepositions:no}}

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)

[edit] 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?!?!? mgekelly 07:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

[edit] Canadian English spelling

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