Wikipedia talk:Proseline

Stop tagging "proselines"

This is NOT a wikipedia guideline (and "proseline" is a neologism), articles should not be given a large colorful warning banner about a "flaw" that is fundamentally someone's opinion. If you don't like a "proseline," rewrite the article instead of slapping a warning tag on it like a lazy full-of-yourself editor.

"Article requirements" are ruining Wikipedia, as is the ease of deletion for a wide variety of real and imagined offenses against style or noteworthiness. I would rather sift through some misinformation now and then (and correct it when appropriate) than face another boring, fully-cited, copyright-legit online encyclopedia.

Anyway, I guess "proseline" is where I choose to take a stand, you sniveling Wiki effetes. New Providence (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• NewProvidence*, I agree that "proseline" is a neologism, and an attempt to develop wiki editor jargon. Guidance essays should be held to a higher standard. This should be reformed. It's clear what the term refers to and I can see that having a term with this definition, but there are articulate ways to express the same thing.

This article makes a series of valid and important points but it may be that the main purpose it serves is to define the neologism "proseline"? If that is removed from the article then will it make points that have not been made elsewhere?

Does it draw together a message that taken together clarifies a community expectation?

Someone with more experience, versed in the guidelines and supporting help materials might be able to make that judgement.

I suggest "proseline" be replaced with "Underdeveloped Notes". A straightforward and concise statement of the main ideas of "proseline" appear below and might become a suitable replacement. Zarthon (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What an essay

Wow, all along I've been fuming about that Saddam article, and someone decided to create an essay on what a bad idea it is! 146.186.44.217 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless

The "regardless" with which the last paragraph begins lacks a referent. Regardless of what? D021317c 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a phase, articles grow out of it

IMHO "proselining" is not bad habit when describing events near realtime. It is almost impossible to spot the important details from the mass when the news are changing. We can always convert those "proseline" notes to real prose after things have calmed down. It is so much easier then, and it is good to have detailed notes ready for the task.

Remember that the historical meaning of everyday events can only be seen retrospectively. We are only hurting ourselves if we try it prematurely.

-- Talamus 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that the article is advocating the non-use of proseline, just that as time passes and the context becomes more apparent, the info should be transfered into prose or a timelineTalltim 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Plural

Is there any good reason the plural of "proseline" should be "proseline", and not "proselines"? 71.82.214.160 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he means it's a continuous material, like sand on the beach. You don't say "sands" usually, unless they're different coloured sands. I don't think this applies to analogously to sheep though. -SB

I believe the proper plural is "proses line". jp×g 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

pronounced: [pɹoʊzˈlaɪn]?? - what on earth is that meant to mean? an upside down omega sign tells me nothing about how to pronounce anything

It means: "Learn IPA". 213.37.6.23 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proseline? Recentism?

Whoever came up with this word and the associated template, isn't this in direct violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms ?

It's an awful name that sounds like the exact opposite of what it's really describing. And it'd be nice if people with mere essays wouldn't link to them in huge honking templates in everyone's face for no reason. Throw a note on the talk page or something, this is just overkill and offensive in its clumsiness. DreamGuy 14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

True: I thought it had something to do with Vaseline. Milkfish 21:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So is Proseline's parent the sister or the brother of Recentism? I'm confused. gohlkus 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. This is arguably the worst document in all of the "Wikipedia:" namespace. A bunch of neologistic crap. The associated template should be TfD'd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Proseline - is it bad anyway?

I find this sort of information, particularly if the dates at the beginning of each line are made bold (or bulleted), very easy to read and compatible with the way people browse the internet. However, I suppose if the list gets really long (15-20 items or more) it might be best moved to another article "Timeline of... whatever". Or "Proseline of... whatever", I suppose. -SB

Pronunciation

The current version says its pronunciation is [pɹoʊzˈlaɪn]. Is that correct? I believe proseline is pronounced [ˈpɹoʊzlaɪn] (PROSE-line), not [pɹoʊzˈlaɪn] (prose-LINE). - TAKASUGI Shinji 12:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares how it's pronounced -- IT'S NOT A REAL WORD New Providence (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Might as well declare that it is pronounced /yætsht/. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If no-one cares about the pronunciation, why it is even on the page? It is a neologism, which is a perfectly legitimate type of word. And it's perfectly reasonable to expect the page to indicate the intended pronunciation. Given that the currently indicated pronunciation conflicts with the standard rules of English phonology and orthography (which, as Takasugi-san said, would dictate /ˈpɹoʊzlaɪn/) it's reasonable to ask for clarification about whether the non-standard /pɹoʊzˈlaɪn/ really was intended. (Especially as it's easy to see how such an error might arise: perhaps whoever wrote the IPA was trying to indicate stress on the first syllable, and mistakenly thought the stress mark goes after the stressed syllable. IPA does not do this, but several other phonemic transcription schemes do.) 144.178.255.25 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No Problem

I have no problem with this form of writing. It keeps things more organized than prose, without omitting relevant details. Jwray (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-inconsistency

Considering that "the second section of [the] essay" was ammended to include a third type of proseline, the "What should be done?" info is now out of date. Not having the same perspective as the essay author, i can't begin to imagine how this should be addressed... Any suggestions, or should i/we just take the issue to both the original author and the subsequent edit author? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Underdeveloped Notes

proposed replacement for the "proseline" essay. *Remove the neologism* Notes can be useful in articles as events are unfolding. As the article is refined, eventually all notes need to be thoughtfully organized or removed. Facts not easily crafted into paragraphs might be incorporated in a supplementary form. Timelines, tables, figures and photos can be created from, or inspired by notes.

Identifying Underdeveloped Notes

Text that,from a common sense perspective, are really notes rather than finished article content is underdeveloped. Common examples of underdeveloped notes are out of place lists of events, details, dates, and examples, incomplete paragraphs, and disconnected sentences. This content is usually choppy or pedantic when read allowed, and is not well incorporated into the broader sections of the article.

If an article summarizes the main points thoughtfully without the notes the article has developed to a point where it's appropriate to remove notes or move them to discussion and figure out with others how they can be thoughtfully included. Ancillary notes that have not been expressed within the flow of an article are often of little value to readers so removing them will enhance of the current version of the article.

Zarthon (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Coming to this late, but yes, I strongly support renaming and rewriting the essay to stop using that weird neologism, which is meaningless and confusing to everyone but its creator. This essay's point is a very good (and the kernel of it should be integrated into WP:Writing better articles or some other guideline), but basically no one pays attention to this page because it's name generates a "WTF is this weird noise?" reaction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thirded. But it's not always about unfolding events - biography articles often end up as hard-to-read timelines when a section happens to end with the "on date X, this person did Y" phrasing, and subsequent editors repeat it one-per-paragraph when adding new things the person has done. --McGeddon (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Summarising

For example, events and stops during a political campaign become less important in an encyclopedia once the election takes place. This is why "encyclopaedic" is defined as "with lots of bits of information missing." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Example

I've added a little demonstration, at #Example of a proseline and a possible resolution. I think this demonstrates what is being talked about here, but if anyone wants to polish it up a little further, go ahead. jp×g 06:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)