Talk:Conflation

message: This edit was clearly explained, but it was unconvincing:
*  diff  23:16, 9 July 2010 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (12,441 bytes) (The Venn and Euler diagrams have no straightforward or obvious connection to this article) 
I reverted precisely because the connection seems both straightforward and obvious to me. Perhaps this thread is needed in order to help clarify the unexpected disjunction.  
I anticipated that some other diagram might be better, but I was unprepared for the rationale which rejects the diagrams entirely. This is puzzling; and I don't know how to respond in a constructive manner. --Tenmei (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagrams are not referenced anywhere in the article, do not relate to any examples used in the article, and do not even have a caption that explains their relation to the topic at hand. Given all of that, I found them sorely out of place (and, indeed, navigated to this talk page with the explicit intention of looking into this matter). I am of the opinion they ought to be either integrated into the text of the article in any way, or eliminated from it. 132.162.73.208 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Diagrams removed from the article pending an arguable response to these reasonable critical comments. --Tenmei (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Euler and Venn diagrams

message: 1. the example under congruent conflations header is one about idiom conflation again. should that be under the logical conflation header? ya know what I mean? 
2. how many times can we say 'illustrative example'? are some examples [whether pertaining to conflation or anything else] not illustrative, or less illustrative?
T-303 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  couple things.  

message: I made some minor grammatical corrections on the piece where the language was confusing.  Generally I just deleted an unneeded preposition or repeated word.  Hopefully it is more easily read now?  Here is one example of a change.  Changed to read: "The "manner" of the scene, described by further context, would explain the true meaning of the sentence."  From: "The "manner" of the scene, with further context, would further explain the true meaning of the sentence."
The repeated use of the word "further" is unnecessary and confuses the text.  joseph_setorius☊</sup> ☼ 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Grammatical Corrections

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Conflation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226165606/http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php to http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conflation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420195906/http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y98/dec98/17e2.htm to http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y98/dec98/17e2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified