Conversation started Jul 25, 2011 at 17:26.
Jul 25, 2011 17:26
@JSBangs But here's the catch - is there an important enough distinction to warrant separate tags for them?
In the scope of how the site can grow, is there value in keeping the questions about definite articles and indefinite articles separate on the tag level? Or is it more than sufficient to contain both of them within a singular articles tag?
Kit
Kit
@drm65 I am tempted to close for peeving. ;-)
@GraceNote point taken. and since there are only three articles in english, you might as well just tag them , and
or [tag:a(n)] and
@Kit Could I get an explanation of what "peeving" is?
@Kit Well, if you can find it, you can link it. Google, however, can't seem to find it.
maybe?
Jul 25, 2011 17:29
@Kit I have no motive for peeving - I got 4 upvotes and an accept.
Kit
Kit
@waiwai933 I think your comment is nice, and will suffice. I am already tired of looking.
@GraceNote well, i'll put it up to the community
Kit
Kit
@drm65 Hence the wink. But a wink's as good as a nod to a blind man. ☺
^ vote here if you think they should be merged
@Kit, you betweened me
Kit
Kit
@JSBangs Sorry!
@GraceNote Complaining about pet peeves, with use extended into just plain bitchery and ranting.
At least as far as I understand the term.
Jul 25, 2011 17:31
@Kit Ah, gotcha.
on further thought, i think that we should definitely merge with . so i encourage people to vote for the synonyms above
Kit
Kit
@drm65 Oh, right. I was one of those upvotes.
this after i looked at the questions for , and over half of them are duplicates of a basic a/an question. there don't seem to be enough questions to support its own tag, which means it should go away, which probably means that should also go away
 
Conversation ended Jul 25, 2011 at 17:33.