Talk:Teeline Shorthand

Deleted text
I've deleted the following from the article, as it doesn't really belong in a dictionary:
 * In order to acquire and develop this skill you will need to work and practice at it for between 20 and 30 minutes each day. It has to be a daily practice because bunching it all up into 1 day at the end of a week will not be effective.

The Jade Knight 07:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Visual sample
Would it be worth including a sample of Teeline writing? For example, the Lord's Prayer (as seen in the shorthand entry)? When I'm a bit better on Teeline, I could scan it in and upload it.

--Paddles 11:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally got around to doing it. Paddles TC 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia userbox
I've also created a couple of Teeline userboxen, for anyone who is interested: Paddles TC 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In case anyone cares, I've knocked up a scalable vector graphic of the word "Teeline" in Teeline. Handy for Userboxes etc. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation
I have twice reverted a link to a PDF file at http://dieselrun.com/ceaseless/ contributed by User:F. This file is a full set of course materials for teaching Teeline which is marked as originally created by the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. Such a link breaches the guidance at WP:COPYVIO. The material is not useful as a reference source as it fails WP:RS and as far as I can see adds no value to the article and would fail WP:EL.—Teahot (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems we've reached a compromise here: put the link on the talk page and we're both happy. F (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can feel the love ;). You raise an interesting point, in discussing a possible problematic link I may be guilty of reproducing it. To avoid what might be a form of Russell's Paradox I have added a tag to my own text and requested an independent third party takes a look to judge if the materials are copyright as IANAE.—Teahot (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opining per 3O. I've never interacted with anyone listed here, or in regard to this article. I'm here because this request for third opinion was simply the next on the list where I didn't fear getting swamped with spam.
 * Of course the linked PDF file is a copyright violation. Frankly, I don't think anyone here is seriously contending otherwise. I've edited the above url cleverly, so no one will ever be able to decipher it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

140 words per minute?
I've read the book cited and nowhere does it claim you can write at up to 140 words per minute.

Is there a page reference? ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.240.40 (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there are no takers, I will remove the statement about the 140 words per minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.240.40 (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have that book, but in two other books I found statements of possible speeds. Harry Butler's Teeline Shorthand Made Simple (page v in preface): There have been passes at 140 words a minute in Royal Society of Arts examinations and London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The other is Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Michael K. C. MacMahon's article about Shorthand (vol. 7, page 3881): On the other hand, the fastest speed attainable (200 words per minute) cannot match the 250 wpm possible with Gregg or the 350 wpm with Pitman New Era. However, I don't know whether these are reliable enough to be used in the article. Ryhanen (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article in the Press Gazette seems to be a reliable alternative source for a record of 150 wpm.—Ash (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The original question was posed by me on 163.1.240.40. I'm happy with any number being there, but I thought it best to point out that the book reference makes no mention of a possible words per minute (I've tripled checked). If the editors are happy with the source that Ash gives, I can include it (it even bumps the original number up by 10 wpm :) ) 86.182.57.172 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added CHYC1984 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Table
The table is definitely a very valuable part of the article- but its content is very unclearly expressed. It doesn't need a rewrite from scratch, but every word of it needs a going-over. A regularization of use of capitals would be a good first step, but would run up against confused writing-- some parts are just baffling. For example, "I (singular)" is a puzzler. Is this simply poor wording for, say: "I (the pronoun)"? For "J", we see that the meaning is "None", and "Can be given a meaning". It took me much head scratching to guess that this means that there is no standardized meaning for the letter (and, so, it is available for the user's customization)-- but I might be misunderstanding it-- maybe "J" means the word "none", or the meaning none. More trouble: for "A", «There is also an indicator A for words ending in "Ang", but indicators can be used for word beginnings.» One wonders: what's an indicator, and what's this statement about them in general that's suddenly appearing in a note just about the letter "a"?

I'm actually quite interested in Teeline now. And my professional work in linguistics has made me familiar with the always troublesome problem of having a notation for, say, disambiguating the letter "I" from the pronoun "I", the uppercase form "I" from its corresponding lowercase form "i"... or distinguishing the word "several" from the meaning several and from a note that a symbol/abbreviation/etc might have several meanings. Semanticists often use: ‹the spelling› versus "the word" versus the meaning, but doing it that way for this page would be an eye-bleeder, I think. So I might have a hack at spiffing up the table. I'll try to find an online reference to doublecheck all my changes against (or: limit my changes to what I can doublecheck online, at the moment). And/or I'll have my public library get me a book on the subject, and wait on that. I've already got them chasing some books on a system called "Personal Shorthand", so, yeah, they love me! – Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unclear article
This article is a bit unclear for readers that are not already familiar with the topic and uses some terminology without explaining what it means. 'Word groupings' is mentioned in the lede, but is never explained what that even means. In the final section it talks about 'teeline theory' and 'outlines' but these are not explained either. Finally, it is not clear whether each letter is written separately or somehow joined together to form a cursive script. This should be clarified by someone with knowledge of the subject. Ashmoo (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)