Talk:Diaeresis (prosody)

Cleanup
Transwiki & delete: The entire content is lexicographic. Should be Transwikied to wiktionary & then ProD-ed to death. (Sorry, this note is closer than i've ever previously gotten -- after nearly 7 years of being aware of the process -- to actually doing a Transwiki, so it's probably efficient to wait for it to be done by someone who already knows how!) --Jerzy•t 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that what's here now is basically lexicographic, but we need to have an article on this subject, otherwise there's nowhere to link to from the disambiguation page. To make this an article, all we need is some more explanation and examples. Perhaps I can work on that, once I get ahold of my Odyssey book. — Eru·tuon 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can make a viable article, that's great (and IMO you've already said enuf to justify your removing the ProD tag). If you can't, there's nothing that says the Dab has to actually link to some page that actually has "Diaeresis" in its title -- tho it's a good thing for at least one editor to look at each page linked by the Dab, and ask themself "Is there a point somewhere in this article's text, where mentioning the word 'diaeresis' would make it a better article?" --Jerzy•t 20:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much concerned with there being an article with "diaeresis" in the title as an article on the concept of poetic diaeresis, which is an important topic for Homer-readers and therefore Wikipedia-notable. If we renamed the article as "taking apart", that would be fine with me, since it still explains the concept. — Eru·tuon 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like diaeresis is probably the right base title for the prosody article; IMO "equal disambiguation" (i.e., not considering any of the senses to outweigh all the others so that Diaeresis should be the Dab title) is appropriate. So i don't see any need for renaming either the Dab or an article. --Jerzy•t 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)