Talk:Geordie dialect words

Latest comment: 12 years ago by QuiteUnusual in topic Contested deletion

Capitals and MoS

edit

The page has been marked for copyediting, but there are so many MOS problems regarding capitals it would seem like a ridiculous task to complete. I am marking it as not requiring copyediting at this time until someone de-capitalises it and sorts out any other formatting issues. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article might not be right for Wikipedia

edit

Per WP:NOT#DICT, specifically #3, I think this article may need to be transwikied to Wikibooks. Torchiest talkedits 16:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

GOCE tasks

edit
  • Done:
    • fixed refrences from(*02) to a real references.
  • Currently:
    • Correcting indentation for homophones.
  • Todo:
    • Consitency.
    • Capitalization.
    • Example sentences.
    • IPA

Contested deletion

edit

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Alanfromwakefield (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can’t understand what the problem is. It took me a considerable amount of time and energy to compile this article, even though I had produced the (albeit much smaller) “Spotter Book” earlier. There is (or was) nothing comparable on Wikipedia relating to the Geordie dialect, although there are similar articles for Cornish dialect words etc. which no-one seems to be wanting to delete.

The article was not copied from any other Wiki site (if they exist). Many, or in fact most, citations are given to actual antique books and records published in the 18th century.

A suggestion has been made that the contents have been transwikied (to Wiktionary or another project). Although I have not checked every word with Wiktionary, the vast majority which I have checked are not there. And I cannot find any other project, Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource etc.

Since compiling the “Geordie dialect words” article, I have also written some 300+ Wikipedia articles on the Geordie songs/songwriters/songbooks etc. all of which refer to, and many utilise, the article.

I appreciate that the article is lengthy (a bit too much so) and would appreciate any help and/or suggestion you could give in regards to splitting it alphabetically or otherwise, but cannot see any valid reason to delete the article.

The content has been imported to Wikibooks QU TalkQu 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply