Niggardly Talk:Controversies about the Word - Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think that this article should exist, but the title isn't right. Shouldn't the title be something like "Niggardly controversy"? HuskyHuskie 9:13 am, 17 March 2007, Saturday (3 years, 4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−5)

At the deletion discussion a good number of people wanted a change in the title, including me. It seems to me that since the word has become controversial at somewhat different times, it might be better to say "controversies", although they all seem to revolve around essentially the same issues. I'm not really sure whether "controversy" or "controversies" is better. I could accept either. Noroton 10:41 am, 17 March 2007, Saturday (3 years, 4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−5)

There's a naming convention that prefers singular words to plural in Wikipedia article titles (here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)), but I don't think it applies here. Noroton 10:51 am, 17 March 2007, Saturday (3 years, 4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−5)

I'm not sure about plurals, but I'd prefer Controversies about the word Niggardly or something like that, just because niggardly is an adjective so in "Niggardly controversy" it looks like it's modifying the word controversy.Chunky Rice 12:26 pm, 18 March 2007, Sunday (3 years, 4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)

I didn't think of that. Good point. The title should be as short as possible, but that may be the shortest while also being the clearest. I guess the link from "Niggardly" will keep it accessable to people searching for something on this subject. If that link ever went, the article would be extremely difficult to find no matter what else we name it. The meaning of the title also fits the subject matter. You've capitalized "Niggardly" but we probably shouldn't, per Wikipedia naming policy. It's better that we don't put the word in quotes or italics (we probably can't put it in italics). Saying "the word" before "niggardly" makes it clear. I don't see a better substitute for "about" either: it's a good, plain word. Did you know there's a whole Wikipedia page not just on naming articles but on the use of capital letters in article names? It's here, but it all comes down to not using capital letters except for the first letter or in names. So: Controversies about the word niggardly Noroton 2:11 pm, 18 March 2007, Sunday (3 years, 4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)

All right, just to make it more complicated, I used the Wikipedia "Search" and "Go" functions to look up "Controversies about", "Controversies on" and "Controversies over" and "over" is the word they use most. I personally like "about" but just so you all know, "over" is the word used more, if that matters. Noroton 2:21 pm, 18 March 2007, Sunday (3 years, 4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)

I'd support "over" or "about". I agree that the article is primarily about the controversies rather than the word; and I agree with the need to avoid quotes and to avoid making "niggardly" appear to be a modifier in the title. Mike Christie (talk) 2:23 pm, 18 March 2007, Sunday (3 years, 4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)

Lots of good info in this discussion on the name that I hadn't thought about. I really prefer shorter titles, but Chunky Rice is quite correct in his point about what looks like it is being modified. As to what preposition should be used, let me throw this suggestion out: Controversy regarding the word niggardly HuskyHuskie 5:28 pm, 18 March 2007, Sunday (3 years, 4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−5)

So, I'm fine with Controversies about the word niggardly. Is there any consensus here? Chunky Rice 11:25 am, 20 March 2007, Tuesday (3 years, 4 months, 15 days ago) (UTC−5)

• Support Noroton 2:39 pm, 20 March 2007, Tuesday (3 years, 4 months, 15 days ago) (UTC−5)
• Support Mike Christie (talk) 3:53 pm, 20 March 2007, Tuesday (3 years, 4 months, 15 days ago) (UTC−5)

Okay, I just took the initiative and moved the page since there didn't seem to be any singificant dissent about it.Chunky Rice 5:17 pm, 21 March 2007, Wednesday (3 years, 4 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−5)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sappy personal story - really needed? [edit]

The interjection about the newspaper editors in Ohio is cute, but does it really help our understanding of the topic? I don't think so, and would recommend its deletion. Feralcats 9:20 am, 3 April 2007, Tuesday (3 years, 4 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−5)

I agree; I went ahead and took it out. Mike Christie (talk) 9:31 am, 3 April 2007, Tuesday (3 years, 4 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−5)

Cute and sappy don't do it for me either, but I think it shows how strong feelings can get about using the word, on both sides. That's why I included it. How many words that have a noncontroversial regular meaning can you say that about? It gives another example (and there aren't an enormous number) showing how offended people can get about it. Please reconsider. Noroton 6:47 pm, 4 April 2007, Wednesday (3 years, 3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)

Hm. To me the story is interesting because it's not just about misundersta

via en.wikipedia.org

Posted via email from Dogmeat