Talk:Dialect levelling in Britain

[Untitled]
This needs editing, although that's obvious. Specifically, the part about media influence. It's certainly not as straight forward, and the likes of Chambers and Trudgill maintain that the media is only an indirect influence (although Stuart-Smith has challenged this more recently) 77.98.102.23 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Seems like the dutch article has more, someone who reads that please translate?72.208.33.71 (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations are not correctly applied to sections using [1] symbols. Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to be mainly someone's college essay... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Dialect levelling in Britain. Resulting redirect tagged as being "with possibilities". Favonian (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dialect levelling → Dialect leveling in Britain — This article is too specific. It should be moved and a new, more general article should be written to replace it. 90.179.235.249 (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support -- The issue may well arise for other languages, but that would be mauch better in a separate article dealing with the subject more generally. Such an article would use the present title.  Accordingly the redirect resulting for the move should be categorised as a "Redirect with possibilites".  This RM discussion should probably remain on the talk page to highlight that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Any reason why the proposal is to make this title specify British, yet change from the Brit Eng spelling (levelling) to the Am Eng spelling (leveling)? Jenks24 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just because the article currently focuses on British English doesn't mean it has to. Better to edit the article to broaden its scope than for WP to have an article on dialect leveling in British English without having an article on dialect leveling in general. Angr (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, get to work then. —  AjaxSmack   01:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Agree with Jenks24: if moved, it should go to Dialect levelling in Britain per WP:ENGVAR (that is, per both WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES!). Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but add globalize tag There is a WP policy on this... somewhere. See Dialect levelling in Limburg: Structural and sociolinguistic aspects F. Hinskens 1996. Just because the article is UK-centric now isn't a reason for a move, it's a reason for broader sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support dialect levelling in Britain. Although I, too, would like to have an article on dialect levelling, this ain't it.  This article has been around for five years with no non-British material added.  In the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL, an article title should reflect what the article is, not what it could be.  A general dialect levelling article can always be created later if someone wishes.  —  AjaxSmack   01:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The tag mentioned looks like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should of
This can hardly be called a "dialect feature". It has nothing to do with actual pronunciation and is merely a spelling "error". "Should have" will end up being pronounced as "should've" anyway in casual speech, which is then reinterpreted as "should" + "of", hence the spelling "error". An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A person outside of the dialect cannot authoritatively comment on its nature. Grammar changes all the time. Wodenhelm (Be polite before proceeding) 05:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What a conceited answer! How do you know the word is actually "of"? It's clearly the contraction "should've". Grammar has not changed. While other points in that list are comprehensible, this is just a spelling error and should be removed. --2001:16B8:31BA:1F00:28DB:FF9F:FFCD:CCCF (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)