Jump to: navigation, search

I see you "cleaned up" the entry on ablaut, but I am not sure why. Was the information on the etymology incorrect? Speednat (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speednat (talk)16:53, 4 January 2013

Not incorrect, but when the etymology of each part of a compound is also repeated, it often makes it harder to read because it kind of "derails" the general idea.

CodeCat16:56, 4 January 2013

The information that has been removed is useful, yes? So, the question really lies in, How do we present it, so as not to confuse or to be as clean and neat as possible? Speednat (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speednat (talk)17:17, 4 January 2013

I generally remove information from entries if that information is already available (especially in more detail) in another entry. In the case of ablaut, the etymology of the words ab or Laut isn't really relevant. If someone is interested in that, they would presumably look up those words.

CodeCat17:20, 4 January 2013

I am not trying to argue for arguments sake, but it seems like we should be adding to not deleting from the entries. I understand if it is so confusing that no-one in their right mind could understand it, or if it was so obscure that it would never be used, but the information removed is "once-removed" (pardon the pun) and I feel relevant. I don't know. Speednat (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speednat (talk)17:27, 4 January 2013