Talk:surface analysis

Giving an example of surface analysis

Hey Quercus solaris, you recently undid an edit of mine saying that it "left a glaring sentence fragment" and that the previous version generally "teaches the user better". Reviewing my change, I see the sentence fragment that you're referring too, thanks for catching it. I, admittedly, leave similar mistakes in a number of my edits. Given that, I think the teaching part of the entry would be better separated from the definition and put into a box created using Template:examples. Do agree? If so, what would a (grammatically) correct and well phrased example look like to you? Thanks again and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I lack time at the moment but will try to come back to it. I may be OK with separating the example from the definition but only if it can be done in a way that doesn't lose the pedagogical power. Hard to explain what I mean at the moment quickly, but I will come back to it. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris The definition seems to be about 3 times longer than a definition should be. Have you considered using {{examples}} to offload the examples and add more? I would focus on etymological examples, but add any other non-etymological examples that are common, say at least 2% as common as etymological use of the term. It might even be useful to have one definition that focused on etymology and another open-ended one with (by extension) or something. DCDuring (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If everything after "for example" can be moved to the {{examples}} box without being hamstrung in any way that degrades the pedagogical power, I'm fine with that. It could be a simple fix, if others don't complain about it. I'll do that and see whether anyone complains about it. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris Your edit largely looks good to me. I have gone ahead and edited the definition's phrasing a bit more, but am otherwise happy. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)