Talk:lore

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

A user account (Smettems) and an IP (173.66.188.100) are both following a common agenda: come up with etymologically-English alternatives to names of sciences that use the -ology suffix by using lore- which they're treating as a suffix- as proposed in this 1910 article. They're also adding translations to these new terms. The big problem with this agenda is that -ology isn't synonymous with lore as used in compounds: the lore compounds refer to the body of stories, beliefs and customs connected to the subjects studied by the -ologies, not the studies. Although some of these compounds are unattested except for mentions in the article I mentioned, most of them have usage that doesn't match the new definitions.

We need to go through the edits of both of these contributors (if they're not the same person), and get rid of the linguistic-engineering POV stuff. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh god. I've had a look at lakelore, and the term exists, but is not synonymous with limnology. And it's not just fixing those two lemmas (which included moving the translations for "limnology" back from "lakelore"), it's every other translation (for limnology) which has been touched. (linneolaíocht, to pick but one example, is limnology, not lakelore.)

And so on for each of these. I have no doubt that many, maybe even most of them can be attested, and I also have no doubt that they don't have the meanings given them by Smettems. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

He's also been merrily adding these terms to Wikipedia as redirects to the sciences, so he could add a link to w:lakelore or w:bonelore, and you can easily follow it to the wrong answer. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• What is particularly annoying about their edits has been the removal of content from existing terms. So for instance the entire translation table was removed from (deprecated template usage) trichology and replaced with {{trans-see|hairlore}}. Ƿidsiþ 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lets see if we can get a list of the terms needing attention

• hairlore
  • trichology (and all entries in its translation table, once it's restored to its proper place)
• lakelore
  • limnology (as for trichology)
• bonelore (which I couldn't find any non-RPG cites for, and suspect can be deleted)
  • osteology (as for trichology and osteology)
• horselore
  • hippology (ditto)
• dragonlore
  • dracology (ditto)
• whalelore
  • cetology (ditto)
• deathlore
  • thanatology (ditto)

He's also had a go at inventing deerslaughter for cervicide and catslaughter for felicide (and doesn't seem to mind that the analogous pair manslaughter and homicide are not, in fact, exact synonyms).

--Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The removal of the translation tables would make this user a candidate for blocking. The entries or the bad definitions thereon could just be RfVed, to save editing effort. I added the tags but lost internet service before I could add them to the RfV page. If no one cites them, they could be deleted to be re-added when as and if there are cites. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have to say, sometimes I’m sympathetic to linguistic purism, but I wouldn’t force my preferences on the project like this. (Do I get a cookie?) --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Of course you do. Hit F12 in your browser and type:

document.cookie = 'SETH_IS_A_GOOD_BOY=1';

— Keφr 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Catslaughter sounds like the laughter of a cat to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Appears to have been resolved. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply