Talk:Compound subject

Untitled

I have a concern with the sentence: "Children are never taught in school that they should always order oneself after any others in a compound subject and use I, saying Johnny and I instead of me and Johnny." I was taught that, and my understanding is that that IS commonly taught. Was it supposed to say "Children are usually taught..."?

English

Prescriptive grammarians try to tell us that we need to use the "nominative" form in compound subjects, but descriptively speaking, this is simply a feature of English. In compound subjects, pronouns often times take the object form and not the subject form. I think the English entry should focus on the other subject pronouns as it only makes mention of "me", though it occurs with them all.

Me and him went to the store.

John and her got married.

Me and them have had problems in the past.

Some problem (I don't understand what) about the table of examples

Here's the diff. User:izno removed it. I came to the article, had a hard time following the text without the examples. So I restored the table of examples. Izno then removed it again and changed the text so that it doesn't mention the table, but it still refers to the examples in the table. Izno's edit summary said "see mobile. remove the only reference I can see." I don't understand what that means. Is the complaint that the table is unreferenced? Or is it that it looked ugly when browsed on mobile?

edit: thinking about it, I get now that "removed the only reference I can see" means that the text was changed so that it no longer says "As shown in the examples". That wasn't the point. The text relies on the examples to explain things by showing contrast with the examples, which are now missing. I don't get why Izno has taken a dislike to the table. Removing it degrades the ability of the article to explain its subject. Seems to be a complaint about the use of tables at all?

OK, I moved the table down the page a little bit, so that when you use "mobile view" the article no longer starts with "Examples", but introduces the subject as you might expect for the first paragraph. Was that what the problem was?  Card Zero  (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove the table to begin with. I moved it to a separate section toward the bottom of the article. Izno (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

And as for the complaint, yes, it's basically terrible for mobile, and gives undue focus to the idea of examples. We don't need 10 examples right up front and we don't need them occupying prime real estate. The location they had been placed was fine. Izno (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well fair enough I guess. By the way, do you actually like "mobile view"? When I used to browse mostly on my phone, I always went to the desktop version (in fact the mobile version annoyed me so much that I eventually got a browser extension to fake my user agent string so that I'd never be directed to m.wikipedia). My very cheap phone has more pixels than the monitor I used to have back in the days of Windows XP, and is held nearer to my face, so the idea that a mobile version of a website needs to cramp everything together and show it all extra-large seems to me to have no validity. Is there something valuable about it that I'm missing? I'm thinking that mobile interface idioms are merely a cultural preference, maybe. I'd suggest Wikipedia should get rid of "mobile view" as something that causes problems without delivering any value, but I guess that would be mean to people who like it.

Oh and another thought: would I be right to assume that you're OK with tables in articles that are all about the table, such as List of domesticated animals or List of countries by population?  Card Zero  (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Mobile page views account for nearly 2 out of every 3 page views (last I checked 62%). It is not about preference but about meeting our users where they are.

As for your other question, I don't see the point. Not least for WP:OSE reasons. IznoPublic (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)