Talk:strikesthrough

RFV discussion
Only one citation, and likely a typo. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we transfer the entry to strike through? Algrif 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not if you consider strikethrough, strikingthrough, struckthrough, and strickenthrough. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried a Google search on strikingthrough and strikesthrough? I am very uneasy about the validity of strikethrough as a verb. As a noun, OK. struckthrough and strickenthrough as adjectives, OK. But I really do not see any support for the verb form. All the hits are either 1) mis-spellings. 2) Taken from computerspeak and blogs. 3) Using the noun form as a verb incorrectly. If this was a real verb, then it would be strikethrough strikethroughs strikethroughed, whereas the actual forms given are strike as an irregular verb plus the particle through. It's a phrasal verb. Convince me it isn't. Give book citations, please. Algrif 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry for strikethrough already has the requisite three citations for the verbal sense (and they are all books). Or do you deem these invalid? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strikesthrough now has six citations. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So it qualifies as a common misspelling then. --EncycloPetey 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Common misspelling of what? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of strikes through. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think so? The noun comes from “strike + through”; the verb comes from the noun; the inflexion comes from the verb, with knowledge of the “strike + through” ultimate origin retained. I believe that “strikesthrough” is used intentionally, not mistakenly as “strikes through” with the space omitted. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If those citations are to be believed, (livejournal is not durably archived for CFI) then it is a slang British-ism, while simply an error in GenAm. The compound word is the noun strikethrough; as much fun as verbing words can be, it is still incorrect to verb part of the noun.  It would inflect as strikethroughs / strikethroughing with no past or past participle conceivable, if one wanted to be intentionally incorrect.  But splitting a compound word does not allow re-attachment after inflection (perhaps that is not true in BrE?)  --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [See my combined reply after your bulleted comment immediately hereinafter. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * Who keeps entering "cf." in actual entries? Gender abbreviations are the only abbreviations allowed in entries (except of course, for direct definition references.)  Use "confer" or "compare."  --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if the Live Journal quotations are deemed invalid, the other four citations mean that strikesthrough nonetheless meets the CFI. Why is such verbing incorrect? –Please provide reasons and/or references. Why is cf. disallowed? What about and ? Is e.g. expected to be written as exempli gratia? This all sounds very doubtful — cf. is a common and well-known Latin abbreviation used in English. Please point to the policy or section thereof which states what you assert. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is Wiktionary. WTF?  Get with the program.  --Connel MacKenzie 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply, Connel, you’ve yet to give a good reason for not using these Latin abbreviations; so I, who think that they are appropriate, am not going to stop using them just because of your personal preference. You have misrepresented your opinions and preferences as being “common practice”, policy, or shared by (an) authorit(y/ies) more than once in the past, and that is, I believe, what you are doing now. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether Connel is citing actual established practice in this case, but for the record, I'm with him in opposing the use of "cf." in entries — though perhaps not for exactly the same reasons. I'm O.K. with "e.g.", "i.e.", "etc.", and other common abbreviations with specific meanings (though for myself, I prefer "such as", "that is", and "and so on", or other such English equivalents); but "cf." just means "and by the way, you might also be interested in this entry, but I won't tell you what part of it to look at or what connection I think there is". Wiktionary is not paper; we have room to actually explain the connection. If you can't take three seconds to explain the relevance of the entry you're linking to, you must not think the link is so important; so why include it at all? —RuakhTALK 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ancient history, but very solidly established practice: and a precursor to what eventually became WT:VOTE! Beer parlour archive/October-December 05. --Connel MacKenzie 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That settles it then. I shall only use the abbreviations sg, pl, m, and f from now on. Connel — could you move this obscure piece of case law to somewhere more accessible (pertaining to WT:ELE?) to make future reference thereto easier? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I use cf. consistently to mean “carefully distinguish between this X and the similar yet vitally different Y”; writing cf. is a lot neater than writing that kind of thing every time (especially in pronunciation sections et cetera). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But if not everyone knows that that's what you mean by it, then people are liable to take the exact opposite interpretation. (In this case — strikesthrough linking to strikethroughs — it's liable to be misinterpreted as "Note that the normally inflected form strikethroughs exists as well.") —RuakhTALK 20:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Point well made. I now oppose its use for the definitions of strikesthrough and strikethroughs. I shall consider possible misinterpretations of cf. in future. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just did a Google search on strikethroughing It's barbaric. I sometimes wish we had a Royal Academy of English‼ So strikethrough as a verb must remain. But as Connel suggests, what about the past and past participle?? I need a good strong cup of something to get over this. (or should I be getovering it?)Algrif 16:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm going to add the phrasal verb a.s.a.p.Algrif 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All that is needed now is someone with the stomach for it to correct the third person singular, present participle, simple past and past participle forms on strikethrough to read correctly, not the barbarised forms of the phrasal verb that are there at present.Algrif 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Google Book Search returns no examples of “strikethroughs” as a verb form; moreover, searching for “strikethroughing” and “strikethroughed” yields no search results in either case. The past tense and past participle forms are, of course, “struckthrough” and “strickenthrough”, respectively; nota bene that whilst conducting a normal Google search for “strikethroughed” yields 535 hits, searching for “struckthrough” yields over 180 times that number, giving 97,700 hits. No “corrections” are necessary. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a postscriptum, note the following interesting example of this process of continuing to treat a verb as its two separate constituent morphemes and inflecting it accordingly here: “How about just sharing the text that’s in the cell and describe what characters are strikedthrough (struckthrew/struckthrough?)”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that a large number of those struckthrough results will be adjectives.Algrif 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The supremacy of computerese is why I sometimes wish there was a Royal Acad. of English. I think it is bad use of English. But then English is as English is spoken. Find the quotes and other examples, and that's it. That is why I reluctantly have to agree to the verb form. But I still think (personal POV) it is a barbaric way to treat the language. Algrif 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree somewhat (especially in re strikingthrough). What prescription do you feel is appropriate? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Shrugs shoulders and moves debate to WT:BP )Algrif 15:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. *sigh* —Ruakh TALK 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)