Talk:Cross-cutting concern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The proper spelling of this term has no hyphen. I am removing it and moving the page.

Oppose. The hyphenless form is only "proper" on this side of the pond. The Oxford English Dictionary has only "cross-cutting", not "crosscutting". According to my copy of "British English A to Zed", while it is common in the US (and based on your user page, perhaps also Canada) to drop the hyphen from compound words, the British tend to keep them (I ran into the same issue with blowfly/blow-fly/blow fly). Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) supports the hyphenated form--try googling "cross-cutting concern" vs "crosscutting concern". Niteowlneils 00:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so common names isn't as conclusive as I thot. Googling "cross-cutting concerns" vs "crosscutting concerns" tips the other way (tho' not nearly as lopsided). Since that's a wash, I still believe there's no compelling reason to move it from one 'correct' spelling to another. Niteowlneils 00:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I think you're right about usage. The "correct" term according to the AOSD.net website is crosscutting (full disclosure---I created the wiki on that site, but other people added the terms). However, it does seem that the world at large is still mixed in this case. Andrew Eisenberg 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Literature list too long?

Whoah? Who just chopped off all the paper references? While I agree that the list is long, it isn't justified to simply delete all of them but the 'A's.

I suggest one of two things:

1. Create a new page for all the literature and keep it all there
2. Select 3 'seminal' papers and move all the rest down to the bottom

--Andrew Eisenberg 23:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)