Talk:Grammar Nazi

message: My edit wasn't that great. Right. Anyway, some popularity checks:
(Fascist) i know i rock hold the applause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.63.81  (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 September 2006
 Grammar - 800
 Spelling - 170
 Language - 170
(Nazi)
 Grammar - 25k
 Spelling - 7k
 Language - 800
{Seas 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etc

message: :This is also used as a red herring when someone has no real argument, to discredit the other person on unrelated issues.
This statement is vague.  What is used as a "red herring", the pointing out of grammar mistakes by grammar nazis or the name-calling by the victims of the grammar nazi?  I'm removing it until someone can clarify (and then fix up the sentence and re-add it). appzter 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Red Herring"

message: The following paragraph was removed on the basis that it is clumsy and adds nothing of value. Clumsy, perhaps. But I think it makes a valid point.
"Being a Grammar Nazi is not always a black & white definition. Some people let minor mistakes (such as 'theyre' and 'concieve') go by, but make a point of correcting major 'errors' (such as their <=> they're, hate = h8, tonight = 2nite, for examples.) This can sometimes earn one a title of Grammar Nazi from people who use a looser form of communication." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.130.112  (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 February 2006
:Eh... I don't think there's anything exceptionally important here, and I don't think it needs to go into the article, especially as it seems this person might just be dealing with personal experiences with "Grammar Nazis". I know I'm one myself, and it annoys me so much when people leave out apostrophes in contractions. Retinarow 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or place punctuation outside of quotation marks (US English) ... or misspell apostrophes. ;-) ⇒ BRossow T/C 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It annoys me when people write ellipses as three periods in a row, rather than properly as spaced dots. LWizard @ 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Nazi = black&white?

message: I have started an external links section, i think this would be a good idea, could someone please add some more and larger ones86.31.234.49 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Might http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp08252006.shtml be appropriate to stick in a trivia section? Eestolano 07:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can't stick this anywhere.. but here's a funny grammar nazi pic... http://imagehost.bizhat.com/show.php?id=178380 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pottenkulam (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia?

message: This article, like most articles containing slang or popular terms used on the internet, consists of  much original research, and little of it is verifiable. It should be removed for the aforementioned reason. 66.142.89.247 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between being lacking sources (which this is) and being original research.  It is verifiable in principle. Subsolar 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research - should be removed

message: In Spanish, the Grammar Nazi is known as Orthographic Taliban (Talibán Ortográfico) 
No, it's not quite true, in fact it's only a temporal therm (now obsolete) and used "locally" (some specific forum) so i removed it.
--Magallanes 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages removed

message: Nazi (word) is also used in the way of a ADJECTIVE, about some authoritarian and destructive way and with a negative connotation (even when he was right). There was little point to talk about the Nazi's party where they are different concept. Although, Grammar Nazis are an exception due to being helpers of the Internet in a never ending quest to help those who have trouble with English. 
--Magallanes 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More clear

message: As someone else already mentioned the idea, and I agree, i added this template. Champion sound remix 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: Do a search on Grammar Nazi and go from there.
BUT HAY LETZ JUS DEELEET THIS ARTICLE INSTEAD LULZ. :rolleyes: Mr. Raptor 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm...

message: This is a poor quality article.  I would also delete it.  If the phrase is really in common use, then it ought to be discussed, but perhaps as a footnote in an article on internet slang.  People who correct other people's grammar can be annoying, but are not an encyclopedic phenomenon.  The use of the word Nazi for something so trivial is not acceptable in serious terminology, although it's probably fine in slang - which again speaks against this as an article title.  I really don't think this is going anywhere. --Doric Loon 07:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also believe this term only has significant usage in a few specific Internet communities. --Ortzinator 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: Well, I added related topics,
1) Godwin's law linked me here so there must be a link back
2) It is an internet lang -related topic so I am adding links from this page to other topics  and vice versa mizzo 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Topics

message: At best, this is a 'definition' article. The term has been around for a long time (I recall being called one back in 1989-90) 'but' I cannot imagine expanding it beyond words to the effect of 'slang/derogatory term for someone perceived as having a pedantic or precisian atitude to grammar and/or spelling.'Bridesmill 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionary?

message: Please keep all discussion of this vote here. Comments placed elsewhere will be moved here.
: Move Per the many suggestions here on the talk page, I've added a template to a suggest a move to Wikitionary. To find out more about the criteria for that, you can read about that here WP:DICT if you'd like. At this point, the article seems like a good candidate for that transition since it more or less just talks about the term and how it's defined rather than about the people, concepts, places, events, and things the title denotes with any citation or reference beyond an urban slang dictionary which kind of further reinforces the idea that the article is much better suited for the Wikitionary. --76.214.226.199 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move Agree with move, it's not really an article or subject that is suitable for Wiki, but is widespread enough for inclusion in the Wikitionary projectMacktheknifeau 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep and hang all you book-burning deletionists. Ohemgee (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Either move or simply delete, depending on whether you can find reliable sources.  Is the phrase in ANY dictionary?  Or if not, has it been discussed by such experts on new usage as Michael Quinion? If so, it deserves a Wikitionary article.  If not, if it is just a couple of people's in jargon, it deserves nothing at all.  It must be verifyable to be in any Wiki, and so far there is no evidence of that.  But it certainly shouldn't be here. --Doric Loon 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to Wikitionary.

message: I'm going to go ahead and make this a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Linguistic prescription mentions nothing of any "person who obsesses over orthography" but instead on one with the preference of a certain style of language over another, not necessarily habitual or unnecessary. Wiktionary has a much better explanation of the term. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionary soft redirect