Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drew.ward (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 13 November 2012 (→Category:Second language acquisition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Category:Capitalist rulers

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:NPOV. 188.108.139.102 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Malaysian Footballer in overseas

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a list article in category space. The appropriate category exists as Category:Malaysian expatriate footballers. Tassedethe (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime television series categories

Nominator's rationale: A bit of disambiguation to avoid confusion that the categories contains articles about anime television series. Most of the base category is populated by {{Infobox animanga/Video}} and could take a while to repopulate. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the by decade categories. Categorization by year is ample. The decade categories contain mostly just groups of 10 categories with an occasional article that should be in one or more year categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavic nations

Nominator's rationale: Why is this needed? There's Category:Slavic countries and territories and there's Category:Slavic ethnic groups. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circassian people in Russia

Ah, so it is a deficiency of the sibling cats under Russian poeple that they do not have the appropriate subcats. In that case merge --Qetuth (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply -- The Soviet Union was a state that existed from 1917 to 1989. According to Circassia, ther term appears to refer to lands north of the Caucasus mountains that remain part of the present Russia. It is not appropriate to use Soviet as a national adjective for Russia. The word actually refers to a village assembly, if I rember correctly. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caegory:Abazins

Category:Greyhound racing in Great Britain and Category:Greyhound racing competitions in Great Britain

  • Keep -- The talk page cited indicates that the sport is orgainised on a GB basis and an all-Ireland basis. Accordingly, the present form of the names is absolutely correct. WP should reflect the world as it is, not try to impose its own agenda on the world through its category scheme. If the British organisation only covers GB (ie UK less northern Ireland) rathen tha UK, we should have a GB category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Double compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per this CFD, it was determined by consensus that being double album is overcategoziation of albums by format or length. That would apply to double compilations as well. (This should save User:Koavf some time who seems intent in emptying this category himself as a result of the earlier CFD). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Huh. I started this task, went to work, came back to finish it, and saw that this CfD was happening. This is fudging process a little, but we should probably just procedurally close this one, as I removed the members and tagged it with {{db-author}}. Thanks to Star, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do something a bot can do? This was not nominated with Category:Double albums, so you have emptied the category out of process. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second language acquisition

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was renamed from Category:Second-language acquisition to Category:Second language acquisition as a result of this CfD discussion in August, but there was a bit of a miscommunication between the CfD discussion and the requested move that was going on at the same time. (This was not helped by the fact that it was a completely different set of editors who participated in each discussion.) The requested move was closed as "not moved", leaving the article at Second-language acquisition, but the category was moved to Category:Second language acquisition. So at the moment the category and the article title use different punctuation. After consulting with BrownHairedGirl about this I nominated this category for speedy renaming, but the nomination was contested. So I am starting a new discussion here to try and match the category name with the article title.

The argument for using a hyphen is that "second language" is a compound modifier of "acquisition", and that per MOS:HYPHEN #3 this should take a hyphen. The argument against using a hyphen is that the vast majority of the scholarly literature on the subject omits the hyphen. (Usage is split between using the hyphen-less "second language acquisition" and capitalising it as "Second Language Acquisition".) Myself, I am slightly inclined towards sticking with the Manual of Style and using the hyphen, but mostly I would just like the category name to match the article, whichever punctuation we use. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm keep. There is indeed an orthographic principle by which "second-language acquisition", "leatherbound-book collection", "excess-precipitation records", etc, are so hyphenated. For the WP contributor who has at least a little metalinguistic awareness, it's an easy principle to apply. However, it seems to be going out of style. And it most certainly has gone out of style when referring to first and second language acquisition, as can easily be seen from a quick survey of book titles from CUP, OUP and publishers of similar status. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I forgot to mention it earlier, but I've sent notifications to all the users who either joined in the discussion about this issue on Talk:Second-language acquisition or who participated in the previous CfD discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • no hyphen. I would repeat my previous argument that non-hyphenated Second Language Acquisition is the standard and has been for well over 50 years (it also meshes with First Language Acquisition). The field is represented by the acronym SLA which shows initial letters for three separate words; hyphenating 'second-language' would result in "SA". As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the non-hyphenated version is the norm, then it seems only right that WP should go with the accepted version rather than attempting to innovate. Also, @Strad: "The argument for using a hyphen is that "second language" is a compound modifier of "acquisition", and that per MOS:HYPHEN #3 this should take a hyphen." If this is your reason for preferring the hyphen, then it's based on a false analysis of SLA. "Second language" is not a compound modifier of 'acquisition' (as in 'second language' acting adjectivally to modify 'acquisition'). It's the subject of a verbal noun with 'acquisition' being a noun that retains its verbal character, particularly in this case passive voice with second languages being what whomever would be 'acquiring'. It's the noun that refers to the activity (or rather study of the activity) of acquiring second(ary) language(s). 'Second language' is itself not a unit, but rather second is an adjective which in this context means non-native which contrasts with 'first', which in the overall field of language acquisition means native. This all means that MOS:HYPHEN doesn't apply to this case.Drew.ward (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't me that made the compound modifier argument - I was just presenting the main argument made on Talk:Second-language acquisition. (I think it was Tony1 who made it first.) Also, I want to point out that while sightings of the hyphen in the literature are rare, they do exist. See Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition by Tarone, Gass, and Cohen (1994), for example. It's not really a question of Wikipedia trying to innovate, but a question of which style we prefer. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right: there are indeed sightings of second hyphen language acquisition. But as you say, they're rare, and your example is almost two decades old. Indeed it's not a question of Wikipedia trying to innovate; it's instead one of choosing between a faded orthographic convention and the prevailing orthographic convention. And to see how the latter prevails, click on the link that Mike S gives a short distance below. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC) amended 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The name of the field is "Second Language Acquisition." There's no hyphen in it, and wishing does not make it so. Just look at this Google image search. There are dozens of books here, and none of them has a hyphen. The article is incorrectly named, and the category is correctly named. So I suggest keeping it. (Full disclosure: I'm the son of a professor in the field, Larry Selinker.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well well, small world. Just three metres from where I sit is a copy of G and S's Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (3rd ed), to whose title Routledge refrained from adding a hyphen. It replaced my copy of the 2nd edition, to whose title Erlbaum refrained from adding a hyphen. I think that Erlbaum and Routledge knew what they were (not) doing. -- Hoary (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just three meters from where I sit is that book too. I've been surrounded by this phrase my entire life, and it has never had a hyphen in any book I've seen on the subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely the hyphen, please. How on earth was it removed in August? The article has a hyphen. It's standard English to hyphenate such a compound item, and although many outside sources don't, we write for common folk here, not experts. Tony (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it this way, please. It's the form that a great majority of reliable sources use, as shown by Mike S.. Drew.ward explains why WP:HYPHEN is misapplied here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also was John Pack Lambert said in the previous CfC "Rename you can have multiple second languages. That is because to aquire something as a third language is to have even less skill in it". Another argument for why WP:HYPHEN was misapplied when moving the article. ---Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. I don't care whether we have "second-language" or "second language", but the category should always follow the article. Content-based arguments and WP:HYPHEN arguments should be given at the article's talk page. The speedy rename should never have been contested. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wrong" and "Right" are irrelevant for this type of CFD. You're confusing the reader by making it harder to use category and article together; since you disagree with the article's current title, you should file an RM instead of making the system harder to use with a WP:TRUTH argument. Note that I'd say precisely the same thing if the category were Second-language and the article were Second language — I'm only here because of the procedural question. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should re-read WP:BURO. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point requesting a move for the page name article. It's been stoutly opposed before and it will no doubt be stoutly opposed again -- citing MoS. Presumably the only way to change it would be to change MoS. My own lifespan is too short and valuable to be used up in verbose arguments about proposed changes to WP:MOS, but if somebody else cares to attempt this I'll add a "me too". Meanwhile, "Second-language acquisition" will be so titled because MoS mandates it, and MoS mandates it because, I suppose, half-century-old style guides prescribe it. (Me, I'd have thought that the editorial decisions of CUP, OUP, Routledge, Erlbaum, Benjamins, etc would carry more weight.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, did you just say "Wrong" and "Right" are irrelevant for this type of CFD.? So if something is demonstrably wrong in a category title, I can't suggest it be fixed on the basis of it being demonstrably wrong?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to restore the recently removed hyphen. Yes, hyphenation is "going out of style" as a continual process as compounds become "permanent" and sufficiently familiar to readers, but as some guides point out, you can never go wrong including those optional hyphens when writing for a general audience who may be less familiar with either these idiomatic compounds, or the meaning that they intend to represent. The hyphen here is clarifying (a little bit), and serves the reader to let her know that it's about acquisition of a second language, as opposed to one's second time of doing language acquisition, subtle though that disctinction may be. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Enric for reiterating this. Please see my comment above. WP:HYPHEN does not apply to this concept and any application of a hyphen would be an error in syntax. @Hoary, WP:MOS may spell out style regarding hyphenation, but it does so for instances when a hyphen is grammatically correct, syntactically valid, and semantically justified. Regarding Second Language Acquisition, in all three cases hyphenation fails to pass muster. Regardless of anyone's choice in style or beliefs on the topic of the article, attempts to apply a hyphen to this article are in error and thus should be reversed.Drew.ward (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hyphen. The acquisition of a second language is also the second acquisition of a language. Being weary of long-hyphenated-phrase overuse in these modern times, I say, embrace every legitimate opportunity to not use a hyphen! —Tamfang (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why hyphenation is an error in this instance:

It seems like this overall discussion is going the way of previous ones over style choices and preferences in linguistic terminology. However, at the core is an insistence that hyphenating SLA is in line with WP:HYPHEN and WP:MOS and thus 'must' be done regardless of what the standard form is. As I've pointed out on the discussion and above, the application of a hyphen in this case is based on falsely identifying the syntactic components of the topic title and trying to assign it a structure in which acquisition is the head of a compound noun with second language acting adjectivally as a unit within that greater compound |_{_[_adj_[_noun_]_]_-adj-_}_>_noun_|. In actuality, the structure is acquisition as a verbal noun in the passive voice with language as its passive subject (active object); second could be viewed in two ways, either as an adjective modifying the subject language or as an adjective modifying language acquisition (the overall field of which this is a component genre). This would yield one of the following: |_{_[_adj_[_noun_]_]_noun_}_<_verbial_| or |_adj_{_[_[_noun_]_<_[_verbial_]_}_|.

The passive voice versions Second Language Acquisition and First Language Acquisition are tough to decipher because the use of first and second clouds the way it looks but if you substitute the meanings of 'first' and 'second' as native and non-native, it becomes clearer: Native Language Acquisition & Non-native Language Acquisition. When shifted to active voice you get: Native Acquisition of language & Non-native Acquisition of language. The more usual structure requires swapping out one non-finite mode, the verbial, for another more familiar, the infinitive, as the infinitive is functionally a verb while the verbial is functionally a noun, this also allows for modification with an adverb versus an adjective: 'Acquiring Language Natively' (or 'Natively Acquiring Language') & 'Acquiring Language Non-Natively' (or again, 'Non-natively Acquiring Language').

You see, once substitutions are made, there's no possible way 'first' or 'second' could be viably made to modify 'language' or for second language to modify acquisition. If these units are neither modifying nor acting as a single whole of a two-part unit, nothing about the syntax of FLA or SLA permits hyphenation. Thus, any use of a hyphenated form is itself an error on behalf of those who've chosen such form.

This is my main point, that this discussion shouldn't even be had because hyphenation is an error, not a stylistic choice.Drew.ward (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this exactly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate to say this, but.... although I think I can infer the meaning of "verbial" -- a word I've never seen in my life (and alas I lack a copy of Crystal's dictionary in which to look it up) -- and even the notion of a "passive" (or "active") NP, you lose me here. You seem to be implying the possibility of "acquiring language secondly", which sounds utterly bizarre. My own analysis of "second language acquisition" is that "second" is a dependent of (modifies) "language", and the resulting NP "second language" is a dependent of (modifies) "acquisition" (and thus the NP "SLA" contains a second NP, an entirely normal phenomenon in English). Thus "SLA" parallels "reflective clothing market", "lightweight tent blueprints", "rustproof cutlery sales", etc; none of which seems to call for a hyphen this century. (Meanwhile, "child language acquisition" has a rather different structure.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hoary: a verbial is a type of verbal noun. Verbials are one of the non-finite modes of verbs in English along with infinitives, gerunds, participles, etc. The various non-finite modes may perform functions otherwise assigned to non-verb parts of speech, but are internally still verbs regardless of whether they are acting as a noun or adjective or adverb or so on. This is different from a verb-derived noun which, while having its root in a verb semantically, is an actual noun as a part of speech, and no longer retains it's verb-like characteristics. Crystal's understanding of the English verb is lacking to say the least, so you probably won't find much on this in any of his books.Drew.ward (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because verbials are verbs and not nouns, they retain many of the characteristics and capabilities of the finite modes including things like voice, aspect, perfection, modality, having a subject, object, etc. Thus, your concern / confusion over "the notion of a "passive" (or "active") NP" is irrelevant because the construction 'second language acquisition' is not a noun phrase; it is instead a self-contained verbal construction with its own internal syntax (just as with an infinitive or a gerund) but, as a verbial, that entire construction functions in whole, in a nominal role (as a noun). This is the very purpose of the non-finite modes: non-finite means unbound meaning that the non-finite modes allow a means by which verbs can appear within a sentence without actually being bound to the overall verbal syntax of the construction in which they appear (imagine non-finite modes acting like a forcefield around their verb that lets the verb be in a sentence without interacting with its other verb parts). In the case of this topic, the non-finite verbial second language acquisition is internally a verb but acts externally as a noun. Thus, while it would be used as a noun phrase (or part of a noun phrase), it is itself, NOT an NP.Drew.ward (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus @Hoary, your analysis above "My own analysis of "second language acquisition" is that "second" is a dependent of (modifies) "language", and the resulting NP "second language" is a dependent of (modifies) "acquisition" (and thus the NP "SLA" contains a second NP, an entirely normal phenomenon in English)." while in an actual NP would be perfectly valid, does not apply to this particular type of construction because you're assigning an NP syntax to a verb construction. I'm guessing this mistaken analysis is the root of the various arguments for hyphenation among supporters of such here and on the other related discussions.Drew.ward (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that anyone follow Crystal, but in his linguistics dictionary (now large and in its sixth edition or thereabouts) he does make a brave attempt at explaining the terminology of a variety of other people. ¶ the construction 'second language acquisition' is not a noun phrase: Er, what? I can't claim to be well versed in all schools of grammatical analysis, but this analysis amazes me. Whose is it, and where can it be found? ¶ I'm unfamiliar with any analysis of "acquisition" as anything other than a noun (despite indeed being derived from a verb), and "second language acquisition" as either (A) a NP or (if one wants functional heads) (B) a DP with no overt determiner. ¶ (All of this reminds me yet again of why I generally avoid writing up grammar in WP: different people, otherwise calm and reasonable, quickly infer that each other's understanding is mistaken, bizarre, or worse.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, yes yours is a mistaken analysis, but it's a perfectly understandable one and certainly I mean no offence or anything derogatory in saying it's wrong. In fact, your analysis is probably the most common as without knowing what's actually going on, this does in fact look like a noun phrase. There are two verbials usually for most English verbs, one ending in -ing (originally -ung) and another that uses some sort Latinate suffix. The latter were generally adopted to cut down on confusion as by the middle Modern English period, the present participle, verbial, and at least one form of the infinitive, gerund, supine, absolutive, and instrumental had all merged into a common -ing endings. The problem today is that most people (and especially grammarians and linguists) assume that all -ing forms are either present participles or gerunds, and that all occurrences of to-verb are infinitives (and conversely that all infinitives are to-verb, and that all gerunds and present participles are -ing). This is the route of most incorrect analyses about English syntax or grammar. Anyway, google Alexander Bain. Any of his grammars (google books has all of them) will discuss verbials (over the 50 or so years he was publishing grammars, he alternately uses 'verbal', 'verbial', and 'verbal noun').Drew.ward (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's even an article about an Alexander Bain in some online encyclopedia. I doubt that more than one Alexander Bain published grammars whose scans (at first glance, atrocious scans) are available from Google books. So although we are now in the 21st century, it would seem that you are citing mid 19th century works. Unlike piffle about grammar from incomprehensibly respected ignoramuses, understanding of grammar by linguists has not stood still. Can you name a substantial reference grammar of English, published in the last thirty years by a major university press or publisher of comparative standing, that treats "acquisition" as something other than a verb, and "second language acquisition" (however hyphenated) as something other than a noun phrase? -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't name a reference grammar published in the past 30 years that's worth the paper it's printed on. Every 'modern' (post-WWII) grammar of English I've run across is so pathetically incorrect that I doubt they'd even be able to separate infinitive from the to verb structure. Bain's works (actually printed as late as the 1920's) are well-respected and as far as I know, not in dispute. The age of the text would only be of concern if the content were based on understanding that modern linguistics has disproven. In the case of this topic, it is not. Also, these descriptions of the non-finite modes are not Bain's alone, but can be found in most grammars from the mid 1700's on. Any mention (and for that matter most understanding of how verbs work) disappears in the first of the new generation of 'modern' grammars that appear in the late 1940's and into the 1950's. They either lost awareness of this knowledge or chose to ignore it. Either way, second language acquisition is a verbial and while you might not find it described as such in one of your more recent grammars, you'll not find a single thing out there that can refute that it's a verbial either (or for that matter prove it's something else).Drew.ward (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see, you reject serious reference grammars of English of the last sixty-plus years because they are "pathetically incorrect", and instead urge adherence to books written well over a century ago and out of print (other perhaps than very recently, as curios conveniently in the public domain) for almost a century. You thereby announce that you are in a tiny minority of linguists. Although "acquisition" is a noun and "second language acquisition" (with or without hyphen) a noun phrase, as adequately explained in (for example) the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (which incidentally presents its reasons for rejecting both "infinitives" and a distinction between "gerund" and "present participle"), you are of course welcome both to hold some fringe opposing view and to argue from this view in this project page. Just remember to keep your fringe view out of articles (other than those on Bain or the past history of grammatical analysis). -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me?!? You just cited Pullum and Huddleston who don't even seem to understand what gerunds, participles, and infinitives actually are, and who have put out a grammar book with their own creation of the gerund-participle and you call what I'm talking about "a fringe view"? Sorry, no. You just cited a fringe view and are disputing accepted attributes of not just English grammar but grammar in general that has a body of records to back it up going back nearly a thousand years. I don't understand what your issue is with this. You yourself said above that you don't have that much understanding of the topic, yet you seem intent on disputing the validity of these concepts just because many of the sources are not 'new'. Would you also dispute that our solar system is not heliocentric? Afterall, Copernicus did publish around 1700... (yes I' being a smartass, but to make a point, I assume to get what I'm saying). I have to say that your fringe theories assertion is a bit offensive, especially as (and you've looked it up already) you know this is not some idea I've created but something that is well written about. Just because someone is currently popular, currently published, or has declared themselves or been declared an expert does not make their opinions any more valid than the centuries of grammars that run counter to their views. I don't want this to degrade into a 'my grammar vs. yours' tit for tat, but would instead ask that you consider the following: there was a break in publishing of materials on English grammar of nearly 35 years coinciding with the two World Wars and the Great Depression (I'm guessing people worry less about grammar when they are busy not being shot or starving). Up to the 1910'-1920's, grammars of English were published with reasonable continuity with various revisions based on established grammars going back hundreds of years. After this break, when life got back to normal and companies needed to get their usual lines of business running again, the major publishing houses sought to put out new products and as there was a need, from the late 1940's through the late 1950's, they all introduced new, what they called 'modern' grammars. These were not modern due to new linguistic theories and research, but 'modern' in the same marketing way that merely facelifted pre-war automobiles were being marketed as 'modern' by car-makers; they needed to sell books and by calling the new ones 'modern', they encouraged customers to replace their older (obviously not 'modern' as they were generally 30+ years old) grammars with these bright, shiny, new ones. The content of these grammars was lacking to say the least, most likely not from an ill intent on behalf of the publishers, but rather because the teams who would have been putting together these grammars (they're reference grammars, so not so much 'written' as 'compiled') would themselves likely have never been properly exposed to the pre-war grammars. Thus, they approached their compiling of these new grammars not with the foreknowledge that is accounted for in Bain, but equipped only with their own intuition and the general grammar and usage guidance of their schooling (which during the time they'd be in school was lacking to say the least for obvious reasons). This is not to say that those post-war grammars are of poor quality, but instead that they are based on assessments of the language undertaken with a lack of awareness that should have been there. The pioneers of modern linguistics, many of whom like Chomsky were university students in the 1950's - 1960's, would have also had a similar exposure to grammar, much of them actually having only had exposure to these 'new' grammars. Thus, their linguistic analyses and frameworks are further based on this incomplete view of the language. The 'current' reference grammars you prefer (and especially Pullum's works and to a lesser extent Rodney Huddleston's) are based on grammars or grammatical analyses based not on the whole centuries old body of knowledge and understanding of English, but rather on only that that's been published since WWII. Perhaps it's unintentional, and perhaps it's academic snobbery to assume that because 'we' (modern linguists) think we 'know' something 'new' and because the field has made great strides in research, that those who have come before us must have 'obviously' gotten it 'wrong' (if we don't know it, or understand it, and we're experts, then it must obviously be incorrect...). I would simply ask that you consider the background and history of our understanding of English grammar and keep this in mind when encountering views that conflict with your own.Drew.ward (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Drugs

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only two subcats for its songs and albums, there is no need for an eponymous category for The Drugs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dannii Minogue compilation albums

:* Propose merging Category:Dannii Minogue compilation albums to Category:Dannii Minogue albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-item splinter category with no immediate growth potential. The single entry is already in a compilation album category. Buck Winston (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jedward television programmes

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorizing TV shows by their stars, which as I understand overcategorization guidelines is not done. Buck Winston (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_10&oldid=522852944"