Talk:Alright

Page header

I am somewhat astounded by the insistence at removing the header that I added. You may disagree with the wording or the links, but to remove it entirely is deletionist and robs the page of important cultural context. The header should remain as it not only provides useful information on its own, but it also serves as a "seed" for others to expand upon. -- WaddSpoiley (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here: First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I don't see any potential for your "seed" beyond a dictionary definition. Second, even if this material were suitable for an article, disambiguation pages are not articles. As stated in the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, "Disambiguation pages...are non-article pages in the article namespace, similar to redirect pages. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow the user to choose from a list of Wikipedia articles, usually when searching for a term that is ambiguous." Dab pages are not dictionary articles, nor are they parking places for material for future articles or for material not notable enough to have (or be mentioned in) an article. Your introductory material does not disambiguate a Wikipedia article; all it does is provide a definition that is already covered by the Wiktionary link. As I said in an earlier edit summary, if this material is truly notable enough for a separate article, then that's where it should be, but it doesn't belong here.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I would not create a Wikipedia article solely about a word and its definition; that clearly belongs in Wiktionary. But alright is part of a small group of words that are culturally significant in some way, and Wikipedia already has articles about such words. Take a look at newbie or cromulent or ain't -- ain't in particular is almost exactly the same situation, being a misspelled/nonstandard variant of an existing word that is nevertheless in common use. Furthermore, many disambiguation pages have a sentence or two about the term itself before listing the disambiguation links. -- WaddSpoiley (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against the article-worthiness of alright: I can only repeat that if it deserves an article, then create it. There are many topics that might be worthy of an article and don't yet have one, but disambiguation pages are beholden to what is currently in Wikipedia articles, and are not intended to be catalogues of every possible use of the ambiguous term, and for good reason: Disambiguation pages are, as I already noted, navigation pages and not articles. Dab pages are indexes, not content; they make no assertions about notability or verifiability—those are burdens that fall to the articles themselves. In the case of alright, you assert that the word has a cultural significance that merits more than a simple Wiktionary link, and that its etymology and use are worthy of being expanded upon, but your assertion is not, at the moment, supported by anything but your opinion. The line at the top of the dab page is still nothing more than a simple dictionary definition that a user, if interested, could get from the Wiktionary link. Again, if it's really worthy of an article, then put it in an article and support it; inserting it into a dab page is not a substitute for article creation. And pointing out that there are some (many) disambiguation pages that don't at the moment adhere to the guidelines is no argument at all. I might just as well argue, regarding, say, a particular film article, that because there are many such articles with overlong plot summaries, it's okay if this article's summary is also too long.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not "alright" is a misspelling is too difficult to dispute, because English isn't centralized - there's no genuine form of authority over our language that dictates what appropriate usage is. All our language really has is a set of arbitrary standards that differ depending on the dialect of our region. What's more, conjugated forms such as "already - all ready," "altogether - all together," etc. have created a precedent for "alright."

If it makes any difference, I insist on using "all right" in my own writing. I just don't want to break away from standard conventions. As much as it might irk me to see anyone conjugate the words, I'm kind of helpless to do anything about it. Not many people agree with prescriptivism, because it triggers a fear that others are trying to threaten their behavioral freedoms.

Just one of many absurdities in the English-speaking world... 98.86.114.108 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)