Template talk:Document

How exactly was the phrasing grammatically incorrect? It sounds stilted to my ears now, but maybe I'm used to bad grammar. 13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neumannz has been able to fix the template so both of us are satisfied, Kryten. The phrase "This article contains _______, and needs_______," is incorrect here. I may not be explaining it properly, but I have always been taught that if you are going to use ", and" in a sentence to join two thoughts together, what goes after the comma needs to be a complete sentence on its own if you take the "and" away. So in the example above, if I took "and" away, what the template would say is "This article contains _______, needs _______." The supposedly "stilted" changes I made allowed the sentence to read "This article contains _____, it needs ____." I'm not saying this would be a grammatically correct sentence (two complete thoughts joined by a comma is a comma splice, after all, and that is BAD), but you can clearly see how those two thoughts form complete sentences on their own. "And" would be added to join those two thoughts correctly; you also would have the option to use a semi-colon so that the sentence becomes "This article contains ____; it needs _____." However, what Neumannz changed the template to works just as fine; he made the two thoughts making up the sentence in question into a single sentence by making them part of the same thought: "This article contains _____ and needs _____." - 21:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what I had misphrased then. Yes, Nezzy's is best. 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WOO! Yay, rules of grammar! 8D -- 01:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gives Neumannz a cookie* So did I explain it properly, then? :P I tried! - 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)