Talk:Misnomer/Archives/2010/November

Palm Trees

There is a mention that Palm trees are not trees because they are related to grasses. This claim makes no sense as "tree" is not a taxonomic category. Whether they are trees or not depends on how you define the word "tree". By a sufficiently minimal definition, it certainly is, though some authors add elements that would keep it from being a "true" tree (if that has any meaning), like branches. However, regardless of whether it IS a tree or not, being related to grass has no bearing on the topic. --Suttkus (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the item is unsourced, and there doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation at Arecaceae, I removed it. If someone can find proper sourcing with a reasonable explanation, feel free to restore it. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Freeserve

My understanding was that it was called Freeserve because the ISP itself didn't charge for use - you just pay for the phone call, with the Internet layer over the phone line being free of charge. This was at a time when most ISPs charged their own fees for dial-up access on top of the phone costs. Of course, this sense of "free" must have been lost when it began providing a broadband service ... so maybe this is why it's a misnomer. -- Smjg (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Freeserve were "free" in the sense of "free of subscription charges" |(i.e. pay-as-you-go), not "free of all charges whatsoever". "Bloody-expensive-serve" might have been a more apt name for them. — Korax1214 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletions by IP: 71.77.21.198

First, I am not clear on why you removed the citation showing the correct date for Wake Forest University's move to Winston-Salem. I would concede that not all the subjects are covered on this discussion page. I am not particularly invested in most of these, but it would do to have a discussion before making the wholesale removal, I should think.

You need to read WP:BRD. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's companion project Wiktionary defines Misnomer as 1. A use of a term asserted to be misleading. 2. A term asserted to be widely used incorrectly. 3. A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.

Using that definition,

"Northwestern University is in northeastern Illinois, a midwestern state. Illinois was, however, part of the historical Northwest Territory."

This entry is factually correct in that Northwestern University's campus location, in Illinois, was formerly a part of the Northwest Territory of the United States. I do not believe this fact to be controversial and, thus, it requires no more citation than is already provided. It can be considered a misnomer because it meets definition 1. That is, It is a term that is misleading because "Northwestern" is not located in the northwestern part of Illinois, the US or of the continent.

I'll leave this one in the interest of reducing conflict, although it would be better if it was sourced as being named "Northwestern" because it was in the Northwest Territory. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! It appears to be sourced in Northwestern University, 71.77.21.198 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Big-budget live action movies are now done with extensive use of CGI footage."

The computer generated imagery would seem self-evidently not to be "live action." But a case can be made that a "live action" movie simply needs to be predominantly filmed with live actors. A film such as "[City]" might present a problem with categorization, though.

Having some CGI does not negate "live action". I've never seen a "live action" movie that did not present non-CGI live action. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"'To tape' is a synonym for 'to record', even in reference to recordings made onto digital media instead of analog devices such as cassette tapes or videotapes."

This seems non-controversial. However, if you believe it is, what sort of sources would be satisfactory? Perhaps examples of the term being used in this way, or an article discussing how the term is no longer accurate?

It's disputable. Almost no one uses the term "to tape" when referring to non-tape, digital recording. I've never read or heard it once in the past ten years. Add either a good recent source, or a substantial number of recent examples. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heat lightning is actually lightning that is too far away for the thunder to be heard, but generally occurs during hot weather.

The linked article on heat lightning provides citation for the factual elements of this item. It is a misnomer because it is misleading in that the lightning is ordinary lightning - an occurrence of an electrical discharge - and is not produced by heat.

The term is "heat lightning". It is lightning and the term used to describe it is "lightning". No misnomer; it's a variation of lightning. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Eggplants, although egg-shaped, are not ova."

"An egg roll is an appetizer usually made by wrapping a combination of chopped vegetables, not eggs. It is actually so-called because the dough is dipped in egg or an egg-wash before frying."

Do you disagree?

I don't disagree with the fact. I disagree that these are misnomers. Things are sometimes described by appearance or their component parts, not just by what constitutes their entirety. They are not entirely eggs. One of them contains eggs. One of them is shaped like a large egg. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"In baseball, the common term "ground rule double" does not refer to ballpark-specific ground rules but is, in fact, provided in the standard rules, such as in Official Baseball Rules, Rule 6.09(d) through (h). Likewise, an uncaught third strike is often referred to as a "dropped" third strike, even though it is not necessarily dropped but it is simply not legally caught by the catcher. In addition, the foul lines on a baseball field are located in fair territory (Rule 2)."

This group of baseball terms is established by citation of the Official Baseball Rules. The OBR article contains a link to the rules where each can be read. "Ground Rules" are rules of play specific to a particular baseball field. However, what is commonly referred to as a "Ground Rule Double," such as a fair batted ball entering dead ball territory or becoming lodged in a fence, is actually a "two base award" under the standard rules and does not involve a ground rule at all. Consequently, the term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense.

The commonly used term "dropped third strike" is misleading because the rule applies to a third strike that is not legally caught. Perhaps the most famous example of the play was in the 2005 playoff game between the Angels and White Sox, which involved a third strike that was uncaught because the umpire ruled that it struck the ground before entering the catcher's mitt. That ball was not "caught" but neither was it dropped.

The terms "foul line" and "foul pole" are misleading because by rule they are located in fair territory, not foul territory as a plain application of the terms would imply.

I'll concede this one, not because it is not a misnomer, but because I don't want to go to the trouble to dig up the details with reliable sources. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the United States, Minor in Possession violations may be issued to persons who are not minors."

A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense. What the editor who added this seems to be saying is that "minor in possession" of alcohol applies to persons between the ages of 18 and 21 who are not minors under the law in most other respects.

Depending on the laws of a region, "minor" in reference to possession or consumption of alcohol can refer to someone under 21 years of age. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"The term "tsunami", from the Japanese for harbor wave, is often applied to tidal waves, generally with the implicit claim that the term tide refers exclusively to tides caused by the moon."

No comments from me. If anyone else has comments, please come forward.

"Arsenal F.C. are no longer based in their original home of Woolwich; they first moved to Highbury in 1913 and then to Holloway in 2006."

Appears to contain no misnomer. I agree it should be removed.

It's a misnomer of the "Original name retained" variety; Arsenal FC are so-called because their original ground was near Woolwich Arsenal. Likewise, it's been decades since Millwall FC were in Millwall. On the other hand, Chelsea FC have never been in Chelsea; probable explanations of their name are that "Chelsea" sounds more upmarket than "Fulham", or that there already was a Fulham FC. It was most likely both. — Korax1214 (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Manchu Wok does not feature any traditional Manchurian dishes, but features American Chinese and Canadian Chinese dishes."

I am not familiar with the subject. Probably should be removed.

"As European explorers mistook the Americas for India, the native peoples were called Indians. Similarly, the West Indies were so called after India. Ironically, the term "Native American" is not only just as wrong as "American Indian", but it is wrong in the same way; while the latter term implies that the people descended from the original population of the Americas were born elsewhere, the former term implies that they are the only inhabitants who were not.

"Newfoundland was considered newly found by John Cabot, who named it when he sighted it on his 1497 voyage, but had first been inhabited at least 5,000 years before. In fact, Cabot was not even the first European to see the island; Vikings established a short-lived settlement on the island about 500 years before Cabot's voyage."

I am not aware of any controversy over the facts of the naming here. Are you saying they are not examples of misnomers? The use of the term "Indian" to refer to the people encountered in the Americas when Europeans arrived would seem to be misleading in that the people are not from India. Newfoundland is perhaps less certain.

"they are the only inhabitants who were not": This is factually accurate, thus it is not a misnomer. If you disagree, provide a reliable source. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Newfoundland: What Cabot decided to name it, and the fact that the name came to be commonly used, does not make it a misnomer. Cabot could have named it "First-seen-by-Cabot" or "Prettyland"; that would not make it a misnomer. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And lastly, the driveway/parkway example has been in and out of this article several times. "Parkway" is used as an example in the introductory section.

And in general, the article is probably too long. As I have written before, it would probably be better were there a shorter artical and a linked "List of Common Misnomers." Justus R (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the citation for the date pertaining to Wake Forest University, no citation is needed (although it is not against policy to add one). The reader can click Wake Forest University to get the information. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a greater point here which should be taken into account first, which is that this article is way too bloated and ought to be trimmed down to about three really good examples per category of misnomer? If other editors feel strongly that all of the material in this article should be preserved, then shouldn't that material be moved to List of common misnomers or some such? Groupthink (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point, although I think if the non-misnomers and inaccurate examples are removed, that will go a long way toward reducing the excess. That's what I tried to do, or at least make a start. For some reason, most people who add to this page have little or no idea what a misnomer actually is. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the consensus on paring this article down to, say, 3-4 examples per misnomer type, for a total of 24-32 canonical examples? Groupthink (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given this some thought. I don't have a problem with reducing the number of examples (although the ones that are left should be actual misnomers). However, creating an article "List of common misnomers" won't solve anything. Give it a month or two and all the same crap (and more) will end up on that list. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (IP 71.77.21.198 editing on another IP)

I don't disagree, but the question is, do we want that crap dumped here in the main article or in a sub-article? Groupthink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The crap doesn't need to be anywhere. Unfortunately, there are a number of articles on Wikipedia that attract this kind of nonsense like a magnet, and this is a prime example. I think we need to stick with this one article and post hidden messages in the article (using the code <!-- -->) stating that the number of examples is limited by consensus. Then the article will have to be monitored. It will be just as much trouble keeping control of a subarticle as it is this one, so creating "List of common misnomers" doesn't solve anything. For that matter, with the mentality of most people who add the crap to this article, I don't think a subarticle will stop the junk from being dumped in Misnomer. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and I hope you're right. Be this consensus? Groupthink (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it a little more time, since there are only two editors favoring this right now. That having been said, I don't think many people watch this article regularly, so it won't take many of us to form consensus. Most of those who add the junk stumble on to it and think, "I think I know a good one". You might message user Justus R since he started this section. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I think we can safely declare consensus since no one has shown any interest in this discussion for a while. Let's proceed to judiciously pare down the number of examples on the page. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)