Talk:neither fish nor fowl

Removed without comment, 13 Dec. 2010

References

• 1688 reference[1]
• 1767 reference"neither+fish+nor+fowl"&hl=en&ei=i5wGTbzkOsH-8Abz6cW5Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="neither fish nor fowl"&f=false
• 1775 reference"neither+fish+nor+fowl"&hl=en&ei=9pwGTbKNMYK78gan1ZDYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="neither fish nor fowl"&f=false
• 1798 reference"neither+fish+nor+fowl"&hl=en&ei=9pwGTbKNMYK78gan1ZDYAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q="neither fish nor fowl"&f=false
• 1825 reference"neither+fish+nor+fowl"&hl=en&ei=OJ0GTbfHMIP48Abq9pnXCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q="neither fish nor fowl"&f=false
• 1884 reference"neither+fish+nor+fowl"&hl=en&ei=d50GTdNtg__wBsPntJsG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q="neither fish nor fowl"&f=false

— This unsigned comment was added by 71.66.97.228 (talk) at Mon, Dec. 13, 2010.

Anon. 71.66.97.228 deserves thanks for providing these solid, helpful references. Two of them (1688 and 1775) have now been reworked as quotations and incorporated into the Usage notes of the main entry. -- · (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I can see why the original edit was reverted: they were quotes shown under "references", weren't formatted well, and (mostly) didn't go with the definition. I can understand why it might have seemed easier to revert than to take the time to figure out what to do with them. It would have been better if they had been added to the talk page to begin with, or the citations page. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)