User talk:Equinox

Junk paleotaxonomy entries

You've added a few purported synonyms of Protorthoptera, apparently relying on WP, but without references. The WP entries for many higher taxa with many extinct members are often unreliable. I also doubt the value of entries for most higher taxa not in current use and not well attested in older uses. That would include almost all taxa that solely appear in WP in lists of synonyms. Such entries in Wiktionary usually also have no incoming links. I'm beginning to think that I could save myself lot of time by filtering new taxonomic entries that you have created.

There are numerous entries at User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa that are for extant taxa, that have numerous incoming links, and that I am far behind on adding. Simply bringing up to standard existing taxonomic entries (that have incoming links and are for extant taxa) would take up most of the time I can give Wiktionary. I can dip deeper into the master list of missing taxa on my PC to give you enough potential new entries to keep you busy for weeks, if not months or even years. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yea, Happy New Year. DCDuring (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: (Happy new whatever, let's get to business.) Okay, I want to speak to you about this. I'm no biologist, botanist or zoologist, but it's usually safe (I gather!) to add a taxon with a large comprehensive Wikipedia entry. Perhaps not so much with the "synonym" lists. I will trust you here, because for me they are "just words" and for you there is probably some history. But my position is that I'm going through a lot of pure word lists and sometimes the first letter is a capital and I think "lol oh this one must be a taxon"... I don't like to delete them out of hand either. Shall I dump the mystery taxons on your page again? Is that okay? I love you. Bye. Equinox ◑ 06:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Virtually any WP article on a taxon is OK, though I am not in love with entries for extinct taxa. (Taxonomic synonyms tend to be very low value. Synonyms that have only recently been superseded are good; synonyms in use in references from languages other than English are OK; but you wouldn't know about these.) Species and genera are best. Feel free to refer me to or give me lists of questionables. Are you working from on-wiki lists? If so, you could just mark them for review with one of the miscellaneous characters that we don't use for some other purpose. Also feel free to use any of the lists at User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa or its siblings and other relatives. I can provide you with longer sorted lists of missing taxa (say, those with 3 or more incoming links), instead of the more selective lists (those with 8 or more incoming links) now on that page. I can also make better lists (eg, sorted alphabetically, grouped by kingdom, rank, genus, suffix, etc). Some such groupings could make for easy, more complete entries, eg, families ending in -aceae or -idae can have simple etymology sections; Viruses and bacteria can have italics (i=1 in {{taxoninfl}}) for higher taxa. I think all taxa should have links to pedia, species, and commons. I'm happy to patrol for dead links; others do occasional runs to detect non-links. I don't want to overcomplicate your efforts, so pick something I could do that would make it easier for your taxonomic entries to be more useful and complete without too much extra effort on your part. DCDuring (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Update: As you may have spotted, I am not creating those Translingual taxon "synonym" entries any more. They are deferred. I assume the standard/modern names are fine, since I often see you tidying and expanding those ones. I will decide what to do about the "synonym" taxons at a later stage. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a question of priorities: what kinds of entries will look relatively "finished" soonest. DCDuring (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

conservatively vs patriotically correct

I would say that these terms make sense as synonyms. In America, patriotism is considered to be a value that the right-wing (Republicans) does more often. (I'm also tempted to do a copy+paste of sense 4 of "politically correct".) cf (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak: "Often culturally the same" doesn't make something synonymous, especially given the possible political drift over time. (Look at how, say, the British "Labour Party" has become centre-right.) We can say "most X happen to be Y", but synonymy really requires "most (or all) X are by definition Y". Equinox ◑ 02:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Other examples: "woke" was originally a black word for being politically aware; then it was adopted by the right to mock those people. Conversely, the right used "snowflake" and "triggered" to mock over-sensitive leftist complainers, who then started using the words to refer to rightists who happened to dislike anything. Equinox ◑ 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick GB search shows that "politically correct" is used to refer to (American?) conservatives without any mention of patriotism, such as "I was someone who felt passionately about the suffering of others, and I was dedicated to fighting that suffering, especially if the sufferers were poor and oppressed ... Christians who didn't share that view disgust me. (In other words, I was being politically correct and despised those who were patriotically correct)", The Secular Squeeze by John F. Alexander, 2005. cf (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you should leave this to US native speakers. As our entry indicates woke went from a broad AAVE usage to a more circumscribed usage by social-justice advocates, to its common usage now to mock social-justice advocates, ie, by (not "referring to") conservatives . I don't know whether social-justice advocates now refer to themselves as woke, but I suspect not. DCDuring (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Similarly trigger was used to refer to situations etc. that would cause some kind of traumatic emotional cascade (anger, fear) among the sensitive and eventually came to be used to mock "snowflakes" and their allies. I'm guessing that it came out of social psychology. DCDuring (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"I think you should leave this to US native speakers"?? Calm down, Nu Yuck, these terms are also used outside of your "ballpark" and Europeans deserve input to define them according to their lived experiences. Equinox ◑ 04:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

.... if they can find citations. DCDuring (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, "woke" is used in Britain with this meaning (and, as le wokisme, France.) Same with "trigger" (as far as I know, in "trigger warning". Not sure what you mean. cf (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I was principally reacting to 'A quick GB search shows that "politically correct" is used to refer to (American?) conservatives'. I've never heard or read anything like that. For that matter, I've never heard or read conservatively correct or patriotically correct, though I have not trouble imagining them being used to mock conservatives. But usually the left does not rely on imitative expressions, apparently preferring more either creative insults or evocative ones, like fascist. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean it's annoying to programmers that "hacker" changed from "cool experimental programmer" to "someone breaking into your system"; and perhaps to somebody that "troll" changed from "clever Usenet messer-about who set people against each other, to disrupt a community" to "ANYONE I DON'T LIKE". But what is your point really. Equinox ◑ 08:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

maknoon

Hi, there are two different roots: ج ن ن and ك ن ن. If the entity is about the root ك ن ن, the adjective shouldn't be crazy or mad. crazy and mad in Arabic means مجنون from the root ج ن ن, not ك ن ن. مكنون may mean protected, concealed or Hidden. Karim185.3 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Karim185.3: I can't speak or read Arabic (except recognising some letters of the alphabet). I will forward your comment to WT:TR. Thank you. Equinox ◑ 17:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Atlas pied flycatcher: eponym?

I didn't think that we would say that a bird name after a geographic feature (eg, Atlas mountains) was eponymous to the person after whom the feature may have been named. It seems a lot like saying Old World flycatcher is a derived term of old and world. DCDuring (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@DCDuring: This is one of those issues that will be eventually fixed by super AI and taxonomy (category: anything whose name at any time was the name of a person). Please take it to WT:BP. Equinox ◑ 06:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So, would you treat ASCII as an eponym? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: An eponym is named after somebody, and it takes the name from the person. So the "Atlas butterfly" (whatever) is actually named after the mythological Atlas who held up the world (a person) rather like the Venus's comb (another piece of taxonomy named after Greek myth). I have no idea why you think "ASCII" relates to this, because there is no part of the word ASCII that is named after a person. Thus not an eponym. Equinox ◑ 01:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The first letter in ASCII stands for American, after Amerigo Vespucci. Ioaxxere (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that eponyms are words derived from the names of people (not places). A "person" can be a mythological figure though, as well as a historical person. So "Atlas pied flycatcher" and "Atlas Mountains" are both eponyms of the mythical character of Atlas and "ASCII" is an eponym of the historical person Amerigo Vespucci. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So, would you have Atlas pied flycatcher be a derived term of Atlas, Atlas Mountains, pied flycatcher, pied, flycatcher, fly, and catcher? Or is the principle limited to eponyms only? DCDuring (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Derivations should be infinitely recursive. A single origin word can have many many derivatives, since each derivative word may have its own derivatives. Eponyms are simply words that originate from a person. Amerigo Vespucci may have the most eponyms of any living, dead, or mythical person. For example, "Alpha Comae Berenices" (a toponym) derives from the Constellation Coma Berenices (another toponym) which derives from Queen Berenice (an anthroponym) which derives from Nike (another "anthroponym" though only mythical). So all of those terms are eponyms of Nike, as well as terms such as "nickel chloride" and "Nice model" (from the city of Nice, which is named after Nike). Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not display it stepwise instead of extensively? Should all descent-type relationships be displayed extensively? For all multi-word expressions? Should we also have the PIE for all component words and every possible intermediate? I suppose we can try to make up for mediocre to poor definitions by more etymology/descent coverage. The more of this kind of thing we display, especially by default to unregistered users (ie, normal folk)), the less we will have to be bothered with giving them what they come to a dictionary for. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

marine acid air

Apologies Eq but I reverted you here. The term is still used, it is just used exclusively in historical contexts (when talking about the past). So (historical) is the appropriate tag. In my understanding (obsolete) should only be used when a term is no longer in use. Ƿidsiþ 13:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Widsith: Thanks for telling me. But please clarify: I assume chemists don't use this term ever, but is it in romance books trying to create a setting, based around a sexy chemist? If it's not obsolete, where would we find it, in a book published in 2023? I imagine that any modern chemist, even talking about historical times, would call the substance by its modern name, outside of any quotations. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Widsith: My understanding was that "historical" was for "things that are no longer current", like horse-drawn carriages. Obviously hydrogen chloride still exists (and will exist long after the death of the human race), so I think you may have done something wrong here. However, when I tried to visit Template:historical I found some confusing shit. I hate Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 01:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Historical" is for terms that are only used in historical contexts. I.e. books set in the past, or books written about the past. I included a 2004 quote in the entry for marine acid air specifically for this reason. Ƿidsiþ 07:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox That’s because Template:historical is completely unrelated to labels. Did you mean historical in the glossary? Theknightwho (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I don't understand it. I guess I am too dumb. Enjoy your entry. Equinox ◑ 04:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

`

symmetrophile

A quick Google Search for "symmetrophile" (with quotation marks) shows multiple websites where this word is in usage. Please revert your deletion of this page. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp symmetrophile is attestable so feel free to recreate the entry. I'll add some quotations later today. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can quote myself but saying "people obsessed with symmetry" just doesn't sound as polite. I didn't bother to add citations because there were enough results on Google to show the word as being in common usage. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp: Hello! As an administrator I do have the magical ability to delete something that looks like total imaginary shit. But I can make mistakes: however, you don't fix this by sucking up on a talk page, you fix it by finding unbeatable solid evidence/citations, as described in WT:CFI. They might be there but I took a look and am a little sceptical. Good luck. Equinox ◑ 01:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

lol, all right, let nobody say that Equinox never admits when he's wrong. Page is very acceptable now, thanks @Ioaxxere:. I am usually pretty "conservative" about deleting these things, but we did have someone who was creating a lot of bullshit... oh well... thanks! Equinox ◑ 08:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Million

Yo. You hit the million mark. Well done, and all that Jewle V (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow. DCDuring (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

EXTREMELY BASED, TY Equinox ◑ 01:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget to collect your free WMF sticker. Jberkel 09:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In the year 2025 it was discovered that I once said a toxic thing, so they had to delete all my edits, and English Wiktionary dropped from 100,000 to 4 entries. Equinox ◑ 09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I love saying toxic things. Equinox ◑ 09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

diff

I know, but the blank line is automatically generated whenever I edit that section. I’m literally helpless. That happens maybe because I edit on mobile. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Interesting. But I have no sympathy :D ... I suggest that you nag people on WT:GP and/or the "Phabricator" bug-reporting system. They usually get things fixed in about eight years. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder how many people have died waiting for their bugs to get fixed or even triaged… Submit them while you're still young. Jberkel 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Once I stupidly suggested to the Firefox browser team that their browser should obey my OS-level settings regarding "reduced motion" (i.e. don't make the menus fly and bounce around — just make them appear in their final position), and some dork argued that "it doesn't really mean reduced motion, it means blah blah blah", and I don't think they ever made the change. In any case I got 100 e-mails about it. Use a junk account. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Request

Hello, I don't know if you or someone else would be interested, but I would like someone who doesn't speak Mandarin to review Category:English terms derived from Tongyong Pinyin and see what problems exist. I want to do this because I think the current 72 entries are relatively well-cited, mostly or all meet WT:ATTEST and now I want to do the rest of the words that are out there. Thanks for any guidance on how I could get this series of words reviewed. Once reviewed, there are probably at least a hundred more of these words out there, and it will make it simplier/more standard/etc if I do something like this now. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)