Talk:Cockney Alphabet

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problem

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The list is supposed to be a particular single version, but many people have added alternatives. Those alternatives don't appear in the named version so that is wrong. Equinox ◑ 21:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of an oral folklore phenomenon, not limited to one 1930s recording... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Article is still wrong then. The alternative is to remove the mention of the 1930s thing and change the header to cover "all versions". Equinox ◑ 00:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see what the problem is. The Clapham and Dwyer recording is one relatively early attestation (but almost certainly not the origin) and there are many other variants floating around. Where is the contradiction in that? AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic