Talk:Email: Difference between revisions
imported>Ro Thorpe |
imported>Robert W King |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I've noticed that professionally, e-mail is used in its hyphenated form, whereas email is a casual form. Should we attempt to use the term e-mail uniformly throughout the site, or would this be too difficult/not necessary to indicate the academic level of the site? Thanks. --[[User:Dominic DeStefano|Dominic DeStefano]] 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT) | I've noticed that professionally, e-mail is used in its hyphenated form, whereas email is a casual form. Should we attempt to use the term e-mail uniformly throughout the site, or would this be too difficult/not necessary to indicate the academic level of the site? Thanks. --[[User:Dominic DeStefano|Dominic DeStefano]] 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
:It seems to be always 'email' these days. I suggest a move - [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 11:16, 15 December 2007 (CST) | :It seems to be always 'email' these days. I suggest a move - [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 11:16, 15 December 2007 (CST) | ||
::I recommend a redirect. It's the same thing no matter how people reference it. Email/e-mail. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 11:47, 15 December 2007 (CST) | |||
==major edits== | ==major edits== | ||
Since pulling the source material from Wikipedia, the article has undergone major edits and revisions to both format and structure, so I've removed the "content is from wikipedia" tag. As this is my first major attempt to modify an article, any advice and suggestions prior to editing by other users is welcome. I've applied a formula that will be uniform throughout articles that feature major revisions by me, explaining first "what it does" in simple terms, then "how it works" for the knowledgeable user, then "when it came about" and other pertinent details for the purpose of academic research. This structure allows for a tiered level of complexity for the reader and I've found it successful, but am open to further suggestions. Thanks! --[[User:Dominic DeStefano|Dominic DeStefano]] 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT) | Since pulling the source material from Wikipedia, the article has undergone major edits and revisions to both format and structure, so I've removed the "content is from wikipedia" tag. As this is my first major attempt to modify an article, any advice and suggestions prior to editing by other users is welcome. I've applied a formula that will be uniform throughout articles that feature major revisions by me, explaining first "what it does" in simple terms, then "how it works" for the knowledgeable user, then "when it came about" and other pertinent details for the purpose of academic research. This structure allows for a tiered level of complexity for the reader and I've found it successful, but am open to further suggestions. Thanks! --[[User:Dominic DeStefano|Dominic DeStefano]] 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:47, 15 December 2007
e-mail versus email
I've noticed that professionally, e-mail is used in its hyphenated form, whereas email is a casual form. Should we attempt to use the term e-mail uniformly throughout the site, or would this be too difficult/not necessary to indicate the academic level of the site? Thanks. --Dominic DeStefano 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
- It seems to be always 'email' these days. I suggest a move - Ro Thorpe 11:16, 15 December 2007 (CST)
- I recommend a redirect. It's the same thing no matter how people reference it. Email/e-mail. --Robert W King 11:47, 15 December 2007 (CST)
major edits
Since pulling the source material from Wikipedia, the article has undergone major edits and revisions to both format and structure, so I've removed the "content is from wikipedia" tag. As this is my first major attempt to modify an article, any advice and suggestions prior to editing by other users is welcome. I've applied a formula that will be uniform throughout articles that feature major revisions by me, explaining first "what it does" in simple terms, then "how it works" for the knowledgeable user, then "when it came about" and other pertinent details for the purpose of academic research. This structure allows for a tiered level of complexity for the reader and I've found it successful, but am open to further suggestions. Thanks! --Dominic DeStefano 12:51, 30 March 2007 (CDT)