Talk:Prestige (sociolinguistics)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prestige (sociolinguistics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330162432/http://www.latrobe.edu.au/rclt/ALS2009/abstracts/Yoong.pdf to http://www.latrobe.edu.au/rclt/ALS2009/abstracts/Yoong.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyberbot did its job properly, but the dead link was to an apparently unpublished student paper. I removed the link, since there are two other sources cited for the same idea. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 03:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: It is always good to have new contributors to Wikipedia or to a particular article. There is, however, a tendency for new contributors to add information to a new section or to the "lead" (the upper-most section, the one without a header). New information can be very useful, but if it duplicates (or contradicts) information in existing sections, it may be better to edit those sections rather than to create a baroque and unwieldy article layout. That's not a Wikipedia policy; it's just my opinion. But I do hope new contributors will have a look at what is already here and change it or add to it where appropriate. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections and article layout 

message: This book was in the list of references, but isn't cited in the text.
* 
I have therefore removed it, but if I missed where it is cited, feel free to put it back. Cnilep (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference not cited 

message: "and in Norway, Bokmål and Nynorsk.[47]"
Fergusson 1959, when you use the search function on it, does not contain the strings "norwa", "norwe", "nyn" or "bok"... Thus, unless the search function doesn't work on it (which it does for, say, "swiss" and several other examples), it cannot make any claims about Norwegian the forms Nynorsk or Bokmål. I strongly suspect this reference was not placed in the right point in the paragraph, since it would appear it IS relevant to other things referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antyla (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Ferguson doesn't include Norwegian in that article. I wonder if the editor who added that was confusing it with John Gumperz's work in Norway in the early 1960s? Anyway, I've removed Nynorsk and Bokmål, and changed the order to match the order they are treated in Ferguson 1959. Cnilep (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference does not contain mention of claim 

message: In the paragraph “Though women use prestige dialects more frequently..." some of the information from the study was taken out of context and didn’t specify that the study focused specifically on poorer populations in diglossic societies, and implied that generally that men have greater means of acquiring a second language, which can imply things that are not true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArushiBhatia321 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions