Talk:Glossary of rhetorical terms

message: I just started this page as part of our rhetoric wikiportal. Please feel free to add terms or edit the formatting as you see fit. --Matt 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate link 

message: I see the article has a "Move to Wiktionary" template. 
Though I agree that the individual definitions should be copied to Wiktionary, I think the value of this article is to inform the reader what rhetorical terms there are and allow him/her to select the appropriate term for a particular purpose on the basis of brief definitions (with links to discussions on things like zeugma and sysllepsis). Personally, I have frequently wanted to use a term and forgotten what it was called. I have also sometimes wanted to look up two terms to see which one is most applicable and found useful information that I had not been looking for. I am thinking, for instance, about all the different ways to achieve a particular effect by not using the normal (literal-meaning) word for a specific concept(metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, litotes, . . .) or unusual word order or word combinations (including repetition) for effect (alliteration, anadiplosis, anaphora, anistrophe, auxesis, chiasmus, epiphora, . . .).  -- 
So I support a copy, but oppose subsequent deletion (which "move" would imply).
--Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Wiktionary

message: A merge with Stylistic device and/or Figure of speech might be a appropriate.I see a merge of those two articles has been proposed.  At least, there should be links to those articles, in my opinion. 
--Boson 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Merge

message: make this properly linkable directly to each word. Wandalstouring 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  properly linkable 

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I'm concerned that a very large number of these terms are unsourced and unlinked. Generally, we need verification for information on Wikipedia; in this case we need verification that 1) the terms provided are actually commonly used in the field, enough to justify inclusion in a glossary and 2) that the definitions are "accurate" (in the sense that they match the way the words are commonly used in the field). While it would be awesome if someone with access to reference works could start verifying this, I think that absent such a volunteer, we should trim the list down only to blue-linked or referenced items. Is anyone going to object if I start doing that ? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Qwyrxian, I personally think that the list also has usefulness in a comprehensive form and that the colouring of the "links" is of further use regarding an indication of the currency of various titles.  I don't object but am cautious.  Perhaps links to Wiktionary might also be added (a red Wiktionary link may certainly spell trouble).  This is not to say that cleanup isn't needed.  Less relevant listed items (linked or not) may also be suitable targets. (I am no expert on rhetoric so treat these comments as opinion).  Gregkaye (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

text: On a page like this, I really think a link (to a page which is itself well-enough sourced) should be fine but unsourced and unlinked is bad. Removing info is also bad: such terms should be moved here to the talk page for future reinclusion. We should never link directly to Wiktionary in our running text; if the terms are not notable enough for inclusion, they should simply be left out. — LlywelynII 03:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for house cleaning? 

message: Is this right? Gregkaye (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think so, but maybe it could fall under some combination of rhetoric with how-to-give-sales-pitches. — LlywelynII 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm adding [[Buzzword]] 

message: Long list of terms here, including some currently omitted, such as synthesis (not in the Hegelian sense) and compositio (former anglicized form, "composition"). — LlywelynII 03:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion