Wikipedia talk:Proseline

message: Wow, all along I've been fuming about that Saddam article, and someone decided to create an essay on what a bad idea it is! 146.186.44.217 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an essay 

message: The "regardless" with which the last paragraph begins lacks a referent. Regardless of what? D021317c 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regardless 

message: IMHO "proselining" is not bad habit when describing events near realtime. It is almost impossible to spot the important details from the mass when the news are changing. We can always convert those "proseline" notes to real prose after things have calmed down. It is so much easier then, and it is good to have detailed notes ready for the task.
Remember that the historical meaning of everyday events can only be seen retrospectively.
We are only hurting ourselves if we try it prematurely.
-- Talamus 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that the article is advocating the non-use of proseline, just that as time passes and the context becomes more apparent, the info should be transfered into prose or a timelineTalltim 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a phase, articles grow out of it 

message: Is there any good reason the plural of "proseline" should be "proseline", and not "proselines"? 71.82.214.160 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the proper plural is "proses line". jp×g 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural

message: pronounced: [pɹoʊzˈlaɪn]?? - what on earth is that meant to mean?
an upside down omega sign tells me nothing about how to pronounce anything
:It means: "Learn IPA". 213.37.6.23 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Whoever came up with this word and the associated template, isn't this in direct violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms ?
It's an awful name that sounds like the exact opposite of what it's really describing. And it'd be nice if people with mere essays wouldn't link to them in huge honking templates in everyone's face for no reason. Throw a note on the talk page or something, this is just overkill and offensive in its clumsiness. DreamGuy 14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding. This is arguably the worst document in all of the "Wikipedia:" namespace. A bunch of neologistic crap. The associated template should be TfD'd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proseline? Recentism? 

message: The current version says its pronunciation is .  Is that correct?  I believe proseline is pronounced  (PROSE-line), not  (prose-LINE). - TAKASUGI Shinji 12:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares how it's pronounced -- IT'S NOT A REAL WORD New Providence (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Might as well declare that it is pronounced /yætsht/. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If no-one cares about the pronunciation, why it is even on the page? It is a neologism, which is a perfectly legitimate type of word. And it's perfectly reasonable to expect the page to indicate the intended pronunciation. Given that the currently indicated pronunciation conflicts with the standard rules of English phonology and orthography (which, as Takasugi-san said, would dictate /ˈpɹoʊzlaɪn/) it's reasonable to ask for clarification about whether the non-standard /pɹoʊzˈlaɪn/ really was intended. (Especially as it's easy to see how such an error might arise: perhaps whoever wrote the IPA was trying to indicate stress on the first syllable, and mistakenly thought the stress mark goes after the stressed syllable. IPA does not do this, but several other phonemic transcription schemes do.) 144.178.255.25 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I have no problem with this form of writing.  It keeps things more organized than prose, without omitting relevant details. Jwray (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Problem

message: Considering that "the second section of [the] essay" was ammended to include a third type of proseline, the "What should be done?" info is now out of date. Not having the same perspective as the essay author, i can't begin to imagine how this should be addressed... Any suggestions, or should i/we just take the issue to both the original author and the subsequent edit author? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-inconsistency 

message: proposed replacement for the "proseline" essay. *Remove the neologism*
Notes can be useful in articles as events are unfolding. As the article is refined, eventually all notes need to be thoughtfully organized or removed.  Facts not easily crafted into paragraphs might be incorporated in a supplementary form. Timelines, tables, figures and photos can be created from, or inspired by notes. 
Zarthon (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Underdeveloped Notes

message: I've added a little demonstration, at #Example of a proseline and a possible resolution. I think this demonstrates what is being talked about here, but if anyone wants to polish it up a little further, go ahead. jp×g 06:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example