Talk:Exempli gratia

MOS:ACRO

I did typical acro cleanup on this months ago def acro per MOS acro / bold, was surprisingly reverted 1. invalid reason Unexplained removal of content "usually abbreviated". 2. no edit summary ...
There's two parts to my fix  :

1. defining the acro per MOS:ACRO It is not necessary to state that an acronym is an acronym. Our readers should not be browbeaten with the obvious.
2. removing italics from the acro - I left a comment "N.B. should not be italicised in English - see MOS ", I'd have to look into it again, but I presume I checked it months ago, and left that.

User:W.andrea what's your actual objection as I have no clue even after two reverts and two messages on my talk. Your first edit summary needs explaining as it seems at least misleading considering the actual MOS was mentioned in my edit summary, and you provided no edit summary for the second revert. Explain. Widefox; talk 13:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

what's your actual objection

As I wrote, 'Unexplained removal of content "usually abbreviated".' In other words, you removed the content "usually abbreviated" without explaining why. Exempli gratia can also be abbreviated "e. g." (with a space) or "eg" (with no dots), so that needs to be clear in the lead. The MOS has nothing to do with this.

Additional points:

Firstly, I made some tweaks to the formatting and punctuation of your comment to make it clearer. For one thing, it wasn't clear that you were quoting the edit summaries, so I put them in quote marks. (Update 16:02: Widefox has undone my changes.)

removing italics from the acro

I'm not sure what you mean. You didn't remove italics from the acro in the article text...

you provided no edit summary for the second revert

Yeah, that wasn't ideal, but the only options I could think of at the time sounded rude, like "I've already explained" or "Please don't edit war", so I left it blank instead. I did already give the reason in the initial revert, so there's not really any need to rehash that anyway.

I have no clue even after two reverts and two messages on my talk

Well yeah, you haven't actually asked until now! The messages on your talk were for you personally, not about the article content.

Lastly, not understanding the reason for a revert is not justification to revert back. That's when you should discuss on talk. I've been guilty of this myself :p

— W.andrea (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

When you say "The MOS has nothing to do with this." - I literally do this all the time to keep us tidy with MOS ACRO as quoted in my edit summary and verbatim above about "usually abbreviated" (and your reply does not justify it, but digresses/straw-mans to spacing in e.g., which is irrelevant)

If you disagree with the MOS I suggest you take it up there.

OK, how do you propose discharging your duty of reaching consensus here being as you won't let me edit the article, and you've edited my talk on this talk page? Do I need to get more editors to underline WP:OWN?

How do you propose we discuss if you do not agree the sky is blue the (in your words) "abbreviated" is covered by MOS:ABBR ?!

You are correct, my edit didn't remove the italics on the e.g., but I'd guess it was my intention, so that is also the proposed change.

It doesn't work that 2 reverts and 2 messages go by, and I have to ask before any other editor has a clue what you object to - see WP:OWN 1,3,4,5.

Do you think you should actually, maybe check what I'm saying - check MOS and then, this time without me, consider our guidelines, MOS and polices. I suggest you do, but without me. Currently, this is a monument for how you let others edit on the article you created. Widefox; talk 16:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

spacing in e.g., which is irrelevant

How is it irrelevant?

I disagree with a bunch of your other points, but I don't think arguing would help. Let's focus on the content. I will say though, I don't care that I created this article and I don't claim to own it. Most of the content wasn't even written by me, I just copied it from List of Latin phrases (E) and reorganized it. In fact, this article's kind of in a sorry state with the huge chunk of seeming original research and two missing citations on trivial things, that I'm not even proud to have my name attached to it. FaviFake is the one who actually published it after I left it sitting in my drafts for months. So please stop accusing me of ownership and for that matter, other things like strawmanning. Assume good faith please.

And sorry for editing your comment. I'm too used to editing on Stack Exchange where those kinds of changes (like standardized formatting) are encouraged.

— W.andrea (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Dead Link/Source

The first source "Word Fact: What's the Difference Between i.e. and e.g.?". blog.Dictionary.com. IAC Publishing. August 19, 2014. Retrieved July 8, 2017" does not exist anymore. ~2026-18310-78 (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Rescued with an archive link. Thanks for pointing this out! In the future, you can try rescuing links yourself; see Wikipedia:Link rot § Repairing a dead link :) — W.andrea (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary?

I just came across WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary § Misplaced dictionary entries, which seems to apply here:

Sometimes an article really is a misplaced stub dictionary entry that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, ... synonyms, antonyms, ..., spelling, ... and so forth of a word or an idiomatic phrase.

This article only discusses the phrase itself and its usage etc, without covering any, say, cultural impacts of the phrase as in "fuddle duddle" or "y'all". I don't want to be too hasty though, so I'm asking here before making any changes. — W.andrea (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)