Justify265
Joined 6 February 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Non-dropframe in topic In response to your feedback
Removal of 'that's
editThe word 'that' is necessary grammatically, please don't be absurd. Reichsfurst (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely! The word 'that' is necessary when used properly. That pointing to a specific noun or in place of which is proper. Otherwise it is subordinate and not considered proper for writing. It is typical of non-written conversation and through email has become more widespread in writing. Justify265 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The word 'that' implies paraphrasing or indicates a subordinate clause, which in most (I haven't checked them all) of the instances in which you removed it, it was. Even when used otherwise it is grammatically acceptable and can assist in removing ambiguity. Reichsfurst (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not disagree use of 'that' has been considered grammatically acceptable but also note it is considered unprofessional and conversational in use. Typically an encyclopedia would be written at a higher level of professionalism and thus subordinate wording should be avoided. Is there a reason you are so adamant on keeping 'that'. Short of personally offending you or making it impossible for you to read the article, I am confused at why you are insistent on removing my edits. Justify265 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Common use policy of wikipedia would suggest that the grammar should conform to the wiki's norm which, for better or worse, tends to make use of the word 'that'. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- To use something I commonly heard from my parents and have used on my kids, if everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you? Taking it a step further, if everyone was jumping off a cliff should you not try to change their minds? I have put it out to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language for guidance from someone above our grade level.Justify265 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Common use policy of wikipedia would suggest that the grammar should conform to the wiki's norm which, for better or worse, tends to make use of the word 'that'. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not disagree use of 'that' has been considered grammatically acceptable but also note it is considered unprofessional and conversational in use. Typically an encyclopedia would be written at a higher level of professionalism and thus subordinate wording should be avoided. Is there a reason you are so adamant on keeping 'that'. Short of personally offending you or making it impossible for you to read the article, I am confused at why you are insistent on removing my edits. Justify265 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The word 'that' implies paraphrasing or indicates a subordinate clause, which in most (I haven't checked them all) of the instances in which you removed it, it was. Even when used otherwise it is grammatically acceptable and can assist in removing ambiguity. Reichsfurst (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely! The word 'that' is necessary when used properly. That pointing to a specific noun or in place of which is proper. Otherwise it is subordinate and not considered proper for writing. It is typical of non-written conversation and through email has become more widespread in writing. Justify265 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are quite right to chastise me, I apologise. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the apology. You are a standup person to offer it which I respect.Justify265 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. It looks to me as though User:Reichsfurst apologized. I would highly suggest going to the articles' Talk Pages and discuss with users there. Judging by how busy those pages are, you won't be waiting long for a response. I would make sure you site some examples. If you have a consensus on the talk page to refer to, it would be very hard for another editor to revert your edits. Best of luck.
--Non-Dropframe talk 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)