Talk:Zero to

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Zero-marking in English. -- Cnilep (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently eleven pages that discuss some form of zero-marking in English: Zero at, Zero did, Zero do, Zero if, Zero of, Zero to, Zero definite article, Zero past marking, Zero plural marking, Zero possessive marking, and Zero third person agreement. Each of these pages is a stub, most cite no sources, and most are very short. Their topics are closely allied, as each usage (with the possible exception of Zero definite article) belongs to some non-standard variety of English, and each is an example of zero-marking. It therefore seems logical to merge all of these pages into a single page under a title such as Zero-marking in English.

Note that this is actually not a proposal for merger into Zero to. This talk page is merely being used for discussion of the merger proposal, pending creation of a new page. Cnilep (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a dummy page to show the proposed merger: User:Cnilep/Zero-marking in English. May I say that I am sad to note the gross lack of citations; it felt odd to add {norefs} tags to a page as I was creating it. I added one citation for the lead section I wrote. Cnilep (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging the articles, and I would assume many of the possible sources discuss several of these phenomena together. One question, though: The articles in question (and your proposal) deal with nonstandard zero-marking in English. What about the zero-marking that is used in standard English (eg. zero-that: "He knew [that] I was coming")? Shouldn't the article discuss those as well? Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection to adding discussion of other zero-marking phenomena, including those in standard varieties of English. I would suggest, though, that any additions be made only with citation of sufficient third-party sources. By the way, the only reason I included current content without sufficient support on the dummy page is because it is, in a sense, grandfathered by virtue of already being on English Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support this. Go ahead, this isn't controversial. Fences and windows (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.