Equinox

Mainframe

It is evident from historical sources that the term "mainframe" in computing arose from earlier mechanical terminology that referred not to a cabinet, but to chassis-mounted machinery that might or might not be in a cabinet. (Private-sector systems were enclosed in cabinets, but not so much the early research systems.) Examples of the mechanical terminology can be found in patents up through the early 20th century and in documents concerning mechanical and electromechanical computers. In computing, there was a further emphasis on the specific chassis that held the calculating equipment, to which other components were connected.

• [1] (the "main frame" of the Moore School differential analyzer, which was not enclosed, and its attachments)
• [2] ("main frame and various auxiliary units" of the Ural 4)
• [3] (the use of connected storage devices to reduce "main frame" computing time by caching recurrent calculations)

“Deduplication” on Snoqualmie

The reason that there were separate clauses in the definition for "member of an indigenous people…" and "member of the federally-recognized tribe" is that the Snoqualmie existed and the word was attested before the tribe was federally-recognized.

Such usage of the term prior to the tribe's federal recognition would therefore refer only to "member of an indigenous people…", and not to "member of the federally-recognized tribe…". See the quotations under Snohomish for a similar example.

Further complicating this is that there is no one specific federally-recognized "Snoqualmie Tribe", but rather two: the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, both of which claim the "members of an indigenous people…" referred to in the definition before your edit.

For these reasons, I recommend reverting to separate clauses for the two possible meanings of Snoqualmie as a "member of", or else two separate definitions. And information about either belonging to the federally-recognized Snoqualmie Indian Tribe or Tulalip Tribes of Washington should probably be added in as well.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hermes Thrice Great: You said nothing that is lexical or grammatical. Remember, this is a place to study words... but NOT a place to be super woke indigenous. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither "woke" or promoting indigenous social issues is of interest to me, so please save your political grievances for another occasion. I am here because I am interested in words. I only care about the simple facts, and the fact is that there are multiple federally-recognized tribes that represent Snoqualmie people.

Also, you should examine your previous "deduplication" edit, which left the definition reading: "federally recognized as the tribe tribe". Since I had to deduplicate your attempt at deduplication anyway, I went ahead and made the necessary changes. The original message here was just meant as a courtesy, to allow you a chance to correct your mistake.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone who meets sense #2 without meeting sense #1 in the first place? It seems weird to separate based on if the federal government recognizes the tribe, since they existed before federal recogniztion. CitationsFreak (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hermes Thrice Great: I mostly care about petty grammar issues (especially the common vs. proper noun, and the pluralisation): regarding the separation of two groups, truly, I am not qualified. BUT since it's clearly confusable, I would recommend that you add some citations that draw a real difference. Yes? Equinox ◑ 00:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that.

Edit: After browsing through some of the other similar entries here, such as Hopi, Navajo, Cherokee, Nisqually, and several more, I have decided that perhaps it's best to just delete this sense entirely, without subsuming it into sense #1, as none of the other similar entries do this. At the time I made the original edit, I was using another entry as a template, which happened to have such a sense #2, but I can't seem to find it anymore, and it seems that many similar entries do not incorporate this second sense, IMO it just makes the most...sense...to remove it for the sake of consistency.

However, I have added in another sense under Proper Noun, the elliptical usage of "Snoqualmie" for w:The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, which was originally in the entry and should not have been removed.

Also, @CitationsFreak: I trust this latest edit will satisfy the issue you shared above.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It does. CitationsFreak (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

diff

I do not consider this a normal definition due to the linked name not being a Wiktionary entry. For more ordinary Wiktionary lemmas, as in abbreviations and synonyms of lexicographic terms, I agree with your standard; however for this class of terms this is the norm I believe, or at least how I have created tons of entries concerning encyclopedic stuff… Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Equinox ◑ 00:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To let me restore the original formatting if it is okay with you. Defining an encyclopedic term within quotes looks like a weird formatting to me. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Er, it looks better to me as it is now, to be honest, because the whole thing (spelled-out-words, and meaning) is wrapped in a single block, instead of being two things sitting next to each other. Perhaps you could raise it at WT:BP or some other carnival of fun? Ping me if ya do, because I have actually pondered the acceptability of this before, and just gone with it because it felt best. Equinox ◑ 01:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would just note that for Wiktionary lemmas that define encyclopedic terms, what particularly looked awful (to me) are the quotes, which I’ve removed now. I am neutral towards your idea of ‘wrapping in a single block’, so I don’t need to start a BP discussion for the time being. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian nigger

Equinox,

I have located four durable cites from 1999-2004. Would you be so kind as to unlock this term please? newfiles (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I added them to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:Indian_nigger newfiles (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles, see the RFD on the talk page; the page was not deleted for lack of cites, but because cites like the ones you added don't show it to be a lexical item. It's just nationality + slur; you can just as well combine other slurs or other nationalities, google books:"Indian fuckers", google books:"Russian niggers", google books:"Chinese bastards"... - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but the the cites that I provided specifically and particularly refer to people from India, and not any other nation or nationality. newfiles (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

How do you think that helps, exactly? A phrase whose parts are "Indian" + "x" meaning (in sum) "Indian x" is unsurprising, that's the definition of Sum-of-Parts, isn't it? Plenty of cites use google books:"Indian fuckers" or google books:"Chinese bastards" to refer specifically to Indian or Chinese people. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: We're not always best mates "-sche" but you know, Mr Chuck Entz used to be my "talk page shield", bless him, and now it's you. Apparently. There is a difference between "people we politically make a face at" and "people we would give the key to, to feed the cat". Congrats on being the latter. Who hires me to write software any more I don't know but I'm in the middle of writing a nice proposal with ERD etc. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As a general comment: Mynewfiles seems like somebody who has spent a significant amount of time learning the Wiktionary rules so that he (obviously a guy) can add a lot of racist shit without being deleted, but has to be debated. Do you enjoy spending your time on this? No, me neither, but I'm a free-speech extremist, so let him do it. And then kill it because it's just stuff he saw on 4chan once that nobody uses. Cunt. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a Wiktionary contributor, but I literally just came across some homophobic/racist edits of theirs on the Obama page and went to their page and found many bizarre edits/discussions. I have to say I strongly agree with your opinion of them. Profesor Caos (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Profesor Caos: Thanks, Profesor Caos. Now, as to the question of your international laser weapon... Equinox ◑ 01:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

dont take this account seriously

it deletes historical entries that clearly are allowed on wiktionary and are shown 2600:1004:B21F:6F08:0:6:912D:6F01 09:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: channel coal

I came across this erroneous/misspelled entry while conducting research for a book I am writing with a chapter on cannel coal and similar carboniferous rocks. I have pored over the literature on this topic. Any spelling of "channel coal" is 100% a misspelling.

I looked through Google books just now after your note, and I did not find any mentions at all of "channel coal", as used in this sense (i.e. as a misspelling of cannel coal. There are numerous sources referring to the trade of coal in the English Channel, and this (capital "C") "Channel coal" is not the same as cannel coal, which is a specific type of bituminous shale. There are also numerous references to coal found in sedimentary channel deposits—as in lithified vegetable remains found in deposits of an ancient river channel. There are also numerous references to coal shipping and navigation of the ships that transport those coals within many different navigable channels. Lastly, there are several sources that just happen to contain the words "channel" and "coal" juxtaposed next to one another, with an intervening period or comma. As far as I can tell, there are exactly zero references to "channel coal" in the sense of the bituminous, fissile shale that is called cannel coal or candle coal, and that is unsurprising to me, because this entry was an obvious misspelling.

The word itself is a phonetic spelling of candle coal, as pronounced in antique, regional British English. It has no relation to the word "channel".

I would appreciate it if you would revert your changes and leave this matter to domain experts (e.g. yours truly), and also examine the Google books results more closely before making a decision that is supposedly based on them.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

‘Misspelled’ terms can gain acceptance in the language too. We are a descriptive dictionary that documents anything that is attested. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)