This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Literature Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It looks to me like "Stylistic device" and "Figure of speech" are two independently written articles about (nearly) the same concept. They have a great deal of overlap. Apus 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. A figure of speech is much smaller in scope than a stylistic device.

• I agree with the proposed merge. Figures of speech offers a full treatment of schemes and tropes (the classical division of figures), while stylistic devices is a looser page that covers the same ground without explaining what makes "style devices" different from figures. Jlittlet 23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As a high school English teacher, I disagree with the proposed merge. Figures of speech are stylistic devices, yes. But stylistic devices is a broader category that includes allusions, sentence structure, diction (word choice), form (plot structure and formal structure), etc. To merge these two would be like merging vertebrates with warm-blooded animals just because some vertebrates are warm-blooded. (EKP on 20 October 2006)

• I'd have to disagree with the merge as well. Stylistic devices are much wider in scope. Being in AP English Language, if I told my teacher that stylistic devices were the same as figures of speech, she'd go absolutely ballistic. It's important to keep these separate to maintain the distinction, otherwise it's just misinformation. 09:24, 23 October 2006

• Yeah, I'm going to disagree as well. Sylistic devices are better left in a different category than the figure of speech. Sure they have their similarities, but they should be left individual.

I've commented out the overlaps. I've no idea whether this is an argument for or against a merge, but I don't think the article makes it clear where the distinction lies. EdC 18:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Stylistic devices include figures of speech as one of its subcategories. I have done some reordering and reclassification of items, and added references to Perrine's Literature. I think this page is now strong enough to stand on its own.

• Also against merge. Seems like a good case for subsection and use of the ((main)) template to link from Stylistic device to Figure of speech. Tantek (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

another overlap Saint|swithin 07:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Against. Similar to Figure of speech discussion above, worth including as a section on Stylistic device that uses a ((main)) template to link to Rhetorical device. Tantek (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to disparage the writing of my fellow wikipedians but I think it would be nice if we could find actual literary examples for all the particular literary tropes described in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.142.214 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any instance of “depitation” outside Wikipedia that is not either a misspelling or part of a Non-English text. That includes various dictionaries (OED, Heritage, Century, Webster's 1913, WordNet, Random House, ...). I’ll preserve this word on Wordie for later generations, but this article might benefit from a more common term for that stylistic device; I’m sure thee is one out there. – Telofy (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about [Grandiloquence]? – Telofy (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will find depitation described, defined and/or used on other pages: a Google search will turn up several. It is discussed in Perrine's Literature. It is an unusual word and not widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergo4sum (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State and explain 154.154.22.239 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]