Last modified on 7 September 2014, at 21:55

User talk:Metaknowledge

Return to "Metaknowledge" page.
  1. Jan-Jun 2012
  2. Jul-Dec 2012
  3. Jan-Jun 2013
  4. Jul-Dec 2013
  5. Jan-Jun 2014

Welcome backEdit

But you came at a bad time. A lot of drama in the BP right now... —CodeCat 00:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think my solution to that will be avoiding the BP, then. Really, all I know of what's happened in the last months is whatever template changes get posted on N4E. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


This is something from Star Trek (so might not meet WT:FICTION): see [1]. The word seems to occur in a very few other sci-fi/fantasy books, for similar devices. Equinox 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A brief survey on BGC left me with the impression that it was more generic in nature than the Star Trek version, but I couldn't tell quite how generic, hence my inability to define it. I'm pretty sure it meets the policy, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Could you please create the Latin entry? --WikiTiki89 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to treat it. L&S only gives a quote from Pliny and decides to assume that it is the past participle of a verb camīnō, but it's so rare that it could just as easily be a one-off adjective, albeit one with an implicit verb that might just as easily exist if anyone else were to use a word this esoteric. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So do you have any ideas for a possible definition it could have had? It has descendants with the meanings "chimney" and "room". --WikiTiki89 12:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen this word before; you can see what L&S say. I suppose that the semantic shift makes some sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


In retrospect I think you were right to suggest that inflected specific epithets may as well be treated as Latin. Requiring the extra steps of creating Translingual inflection-line templates seems silly. I am leaving the uninflected specific epithets and the genitive forms of pseudo-Latin (SB's term) personal surnames as Translingual. If there were a clear consensus for another solution, I would go that way, but the practical advantage for speeding proper Translingual entries with comprehensible specific epithet information, not present in any existing taxonomic databases that I've seen, seems substantial. I think there are databases, some fairly comprehensive, that have specific epithets, but they are not very convenient for casual users. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I remain, like you (as far as I know), deeply sceptical of how we can handle Translingual entries without guidelines and demarcations clearer than those that exist at present. I haven't time to do much work on these matters any longer, nor will I for months, but if you create a vote or discussion and leave me a notification here, I will be happy to (briefly) critique, debate, or vote as the situation demands, if it can help lead us to a clear-cut solution on entries like this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Some features that reduce the risk are the presence of New Latin labels in many of the debatable Latin adjectives, the small number of Translingual adjectives, and the existence of categories marking entries as using or needing Latin or Translingual specific epithets. If necessary we could reverse almost all the choices made so far fairly quickly. Though I have worked on these for a while I don't really have a preference for the ultimate solution. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)