Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of commonly misused English language phrases

List of commonly misused English language phrases
I think this meets the criteria: it's very useful (I've used it a few times :-)), is well-organized, is properly sourced, and it explains everything fairly well. There are no images, but I don't think any are necessary. IMO, it is one of the best lists around, so here we go. -- Boricua  e  ddie  22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Excellent article, I must say. I'm sure I'll be referencing it all the time now! A few suggestions:
 * The References section should give more than just the titles (ie stuff like publisher, date, etc. See WP:CITE)
 * ✅ -- Boricua  e  ddie  23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Notes section and References sections should be swapped (Notes first, then References).
 * ✅ -- Boricua  e  ddie  23:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the entries provide a useful explanation/example, but few of the entries don't (Hay/Straw, Reign/Rein).
 * I can't seem to find examples for those. Should I remove them? -- Boricua  e  ddie  23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say remove them. But it couldn't be that hard to just make up some examples, right?
 * It is for me. I don't think they should be removed; this isn't a "List of commonly misused English language phrases and examples of their use" :-) -- Boricua  e  ddie  18:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend swapping the first and second PARAGRAPHS around. (''edit: I accidentally wrote sentences instead of paragraphs. I've fixed it. Drewcifer)
 * ✅ Not sure why it was that way in the first place :-) -- Boricua  e  ddie  23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The introduction should be referenced a bit, since that's the only non-list part of the article.
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|20px]] Comment: I removed some info for which I could not find references. Is that enough? -- Boricua  e  ddie  03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly better, but FA standards to require most statements of fact to be referenced. For example, the following sentences would need citations:


 * "It is possible that some of the meanings marked Non-standard will pass into Standard English in the future, but at this time all of the following Non-standard phrases are likely to be marked as incorrect by English teachers or changed by editors if used in a work submitted for publication."
 * "The words listed below are consistently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition."
 * "There may be regional variations in grammar, spelling and word-use, especially between different English-speaking countries."
 * "Such differences are not seen as incorrect once they have gained widespread acceptance in a particular country."Drewcifer 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Drewcifer 06:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support - This could become a strong support with a few things. Inline citations are paradigm, and particularly the items in the list. I know that you're making reference to a handful of sources, but I'd like to know which item refers to which reference. Another matter, and this is more a matter of preference based on discussion, I'd say: are these really "frequently" misused English words? I would rename it as "commonly", rather. Another matter is that some of these are not words so much as misused grammar. I think perhaps that a more suitable title would be "List of common English language grammatical errors", or something to that effect. I just don't think the title is directly accurate of the content of the page. One last thing is that you draw reference to "venal" and "venial" with two examples of use of "venial", though with none for "venal". Maybe one for "Venal" would be appropriate to compensate? Other than these minor gripes (and my agreement with drewcifer's items), I'm a support vote, but still weak support for now. -- linca linca  10:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the idea of changing the name, but not to "grammatical errors", as the mistakes are not solely grammatical. Maybe "List of commonly misused English words"? -- Boricua  e  ddie  00:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What about "List of commonly misused English language phrases"? I think it's implicit taht we use the term "language" as we're not referring to the country, and it's quite susceptible to be perceived as such. Further, I believe "phrase" rather than word is appropriate, as some are not incorrect uses of the words themselves, rather the context of the words used around them (i.e. at times, the other words cause the phrasing issues, rather than the word itself, especially in the case of words lie "I, me, myself" etc). linca  linca  02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. Do I move it now, or do I wait for others to post their opinions? -- Boricua  e  ddie  02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree with the suggestion, then go for it. If you adress that and my other concerns, I'll convert to strong support for it. linca  linca  06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. Page moved. -- Boricua  e  ddie  16:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- thanks for your input. I'm working on addressing your concerns :-) -- Boricua  e  ddie  20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that it should give the origins of the misuses. If most of the misuses have the same general origin (eg similar spelling) then that should be mentioned and the misuses that have a different origin from this (eg meaning divergence, similar sound) should be mentioned somewhere. The sentence about homonyms in the lead appears to do this, but not all examples are homonyms. For example, I heard somewhere that lie/lay is due to someone deciding that one is always intransitive, while the other is always transitive. Basically, the causes of the misuses should be given. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you find references for such claims? -- Boricua  e  ddie  22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I love the list and will use it with some of my students. Other than some of the comments that have already been mentioned, I would recommend a further proofreading for typos.  I did notice one in the "comprise" entry, but there could be others.  ludahai 魯大海 14:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Word didn't find anything wrong in the compromise entry, and it's hard for it to find others, as some are incorrectly written on purpose. Could you be bold and fix some yourself? -- Boricua  e  ddie  18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the objective criteria these examples were chosen on?--Pharos 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you advise how objective criteria can be defined? With a listing like this, it's a matter of "commonness". SHould it become definitive, then it could be defined, but language matters are fickle, to say the least. There may be many items of misuse that are not identified here as they've been identified or considered as too trivial, however the ones used herein are common mispractices. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we need to be careful not to be indiscriminate and allow any obscure misuse to be listed and only indicate those as described in the title as being "commonly misused" (which was previoudly "frequently misused"). linca  linca  06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Firstly, the list should be moved back to "... of words" since it is a list of words. A list of commonly misused phrases would include "begs the question" and other phrases. The examples could be considered original research. The definitions are also on dangerous ground: too close to the source and it is plagiarism, to far and it is original research. It fails WIAFL 1a1 since it (with a couple of exceptions) doesn't link to articles. Instead it links to Wiktionary definitions. In addition, the entry criteria are vague. Who determined these are "consistently misused"? What is a "major English dictionary"? The issue of international differences is fudged. It fails 1b (comprehensive) since I can easily find a missing misused word pair: "which/that". It fails 1c due to the lack of inline citations that are essential for dynamic lists. The lead needs some serious copyediting attention (which is ironic since this list concerns careful English). Some examples of poor, unprofessional or discouraged (on WP) phrases are "meant to include", "so-called", "it is possible that", "at this time", "are likely to be", "words which". The lead discusses "usage writers" and "dictionaries". They can't be treated as equivalent arbiters of English usage. Many dictionaries see their purpose as documenting current usage rather than traditional usage. As such, they will be far more liberal in accepting "poor usage" than someone writing a style guide. This may be a useful resource, but I'm not convinced it belongs on WP. Colin°Talk 13:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a debate a long time ago to see if it was appropriate for Wikipedia; it was determined that it was. The other points, I'll do my best to fix them. -- Boricu æ  ddie  20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)