Talk:Misnomer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
/Archive 1 (April 2005–March 2008)

Removed the America/United States of./The Americas bit. Between English speakers, America refers ONLY refers to the USA. A Guatemalan is not an American. A Guatemalan would be from ONE OF the AmericaS (note the THE and S). The Americas are not a single landmass, but two. The two continents are NOT America... they are THE AmericaS.

[edit] CC=Carbon Copy?

I think this claim is probably an example of POV or OR; my understanding is that CC stands for "copies", in the same way that pp stands for "pages" and nn was once a common abbreviation for "names" (hence the expression "N or M", originally "N or NN", meaning "name or names"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.78 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFC that specifies the format (2822) expands Cc as "carbon copy". Not dubious.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.6.3

91.152.166.106 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

CC is not a misnomer as carbon copy refers to an old style of copying messages by using carbon paper. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hundred Years' War

Is that a good misnomer because it lasted 116 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessKirlia (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Groupthink (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain (band)

Since the band was often classified as a power trio, even though there were four musicians, could that be considered a misnomer? Under the strictest definition, I wouldn't think so; but I'm just curious. - Cubs Fan (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt it, since there's nothing in their name to indicate that they're supposed to be a trio. On the other hand, the Thompson Twins is almost certainly a misnomer, since they were actually a trio (and IIRC were unrelated). 217.171.129.69 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Items belonging in multiple sections

Some items listed belong in more than one section (e.g. "Guinea pig" is listed under both "Similarity" and "Reanalysis" — it could also be listed under "Association with place other than one might assume", though thankfully it isn't).

I propose that to shorten the article, instances be listed only in the first section in which they belong, perhaps with a system of coloured bullets to indicate other sections in which they also belong. Fortunately "Guinea pig" is the only actual duplication I've found, but there are several potential duplications. 217.171.129.69 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Should all the sectionmarks be emboldened, or just those (blue and teal, and perhaps green) which actually need emboldening? BTW, sorry about doing so many edits today, but I keep spotting things which IMO need to be changed. :-) 217.171.129.69 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The bulleted list in the italicized section explaining that items are in multiple sections isn't rendering properly in IE6. I see html and wiki markup. I don't know if this is an IE issue or just a formatting problem by the author of this section. Steneub (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's how this section is supposed to appear; it's a reference section giving the code sequences for the various coloured sectionmarks, so it's important that the code shows instead of rendering. -- Korax1214 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Easter Thursday"

This is one which I would like to add to the main page, but which probably doesn't belong because a citation cannot be found.

In 2006, and again in 2007, I saw posters advertising a club night on "Easter Thursday", but in both cases the date given was that of Maundy Thursday (aka Holy Thursday), the Thursday before Easter. Easter Thursday is the Thursday of Easter Week, i.e. the Thursday after Easter.

I suspect that in both cases the designer was thinking in terms of the modern (Monday–Sunday) week, instead of the traditional Christian (Sunday–Saturday) one. -- Korax1214 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Clapton

Could the 2007 Clapton compilation be considered a misnomer? It's not technically a "complete" Clapton collection, because it only covers from Cream to Road to Escondido, his collaboration with JJ Cale. It leaves out a lot of good cuts from his early career. --Cubs Fan (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] college

"In the United States, the term 'college' traditionally refers to an institution which does not grant doctoral or professional degrees." Isn't this the complete opposite? Everyone I know refers to anyone going to a university as "going to college." Isn't that the true misnomer that should be here? - Mount Molehill (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I suspect this really belongs to the "Differences between American and British English" page rather than here; in British English, the term "college" usually refers to a specific campus of a multi-campus university, e.g. the University of London spreads from Chelsea College in the west to Queen Mary College in the east (and possibly further in both cases). -- 92.40.185.131 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

College can also be a non-university further education centre, such as a sixth-form college or a college where, for example, vocational courses, adult learning courses etc. are provided. But I agree, it is a American/British English discussion and certainly not misnomer a_boardley (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is the list really neccesary?

Wouldn't this article be much better set up as a description of different types of misnomers with a few well-known or easy to grasp examples for each (ex: Kleenez, Panama hat, koala bear)? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is necessary, but needs trimming a lot (see discussions below), so that it would be what you describe (albeit longer) and not a list of everything anyone has every misunderstood a_boardley (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cable TV

Removing "cable television" from the list. It is not a misnomer in that true cable TV delivers the TV signal to the receiver by means of coaxial cable from the distribution point of the cable TV service.Justus R (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree - or by fibre-optic cable. Dbfirs 08:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstandings and misconceptions

Should we restrict this article (if it is worth keeping) to strict misnomers (wrongly named), rather than including terms that are commonly misunderstood? I suppose the distinction is not always clear. What do other editors think? Dbfirs 08:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Strict. If people need clairifcation on a misunderstanding they should look at the article itself, this should just be misnomers in the true sense of the word a_boardley (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] There's a lot of pretty ridiculous stuff here

I made some edits. "Magpie" etymologically has nothing to do with pies. Not a misnomer. Was this a joke? Coca Cola does still contain coca (albeit decocainized) and cola. Just because people in India never called themselves Indians does not mean this is a misnomer. It's an exonym. The Deutsch may not call themselves German, but that doesn't mean German is a misnomer. Exonyms certainly can be considered insensitive, with autonyms being preferable, but that doesn't make them misnomers.

The list of bands is way over the top. I didn't edit it much; I don't know the Alan Parsons project, but since the text I took out listed Alan Parsons as a founding member, I don't see how this is a misnomer. I think there probably are a substantial number of people who think that somebody named Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd is actually a member of the respective groups. Really though, there are literally thousands of band names that should not be taken literally. None of the Presidents of the United States of America ever held that office. Black Francis and Kim Deal are not actually elves/fairies. Contrary to popular belief, not one emaciated dog can be counted among the members of Skinny Puppy.

Noting the question above about strict misnomers vs. misunderstood terms, Canary Islands and Scotland Yard are not misnomers.

There's a lot of garbage in here. Eggplant? Arguing that a cartoon character is 3-dimensional and thus not a square (Spongebob may be more of a rectangle than a square, but he only exists in a 2-D medium)? Detroit Pistons play in a suburb of Detroit (using the name of the largest city in a metro area to include suburbs is addressed elsewhere in the article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Republics

What about adding those nations such as the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) which were not actually democracies? I believe there were other then-communist nations with similar names.

More tenuously, Northern Ireland is further south than the northernmost point of the Republic of Ireland, sometimes called Southern Ireland (see Extreme points of Ireland). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, on this article (but not most other articles) I tend to be a deletionist. I think about 80% of this overbloated and often ridiculous article needs to go. I chipped away at it by removing the most glaring examples of complete misinterpretation of the word "misnomer", but the article is still embarraassingly full of junk.

As for GDR, my opinion is that countries can name themselves anything they want or define democracy any way they want. Just because we disagree does not make it a misnomer.

The Northern Ireland example is closer to a real misnomer, although we then get into the issue of whether we are talking about most of Ireland being south of Northern Ireland, or all of Ireland being south of Northern Ireland. If no one else expresses an opinion, I would not remove it if you added it to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything like that about N.I. should be included. Southern Ireland is an incorrect term used by people trying to distinguish whether 'The Republic of..' or 'Northern...' Ireland is meant. I note that it is difficult sometimes to clarify between 'Northern/Southern' and 'The north of/the south of'. Ireland is Ireland, historically the island as a whole and, when stated as is often meant as ROI these days. Northern Ireland, when formed, drew its name from its location in the north of Ireland and does not claim to be 'all of the north of Ireland'. Therefore I don't think it should be listed as a misnomer. At most, a line or two clarifying the situation on the and Ireland article may be necessary (I have not checked, maybe there is already).

Well done for tidying Ward3001, the article was cluttered full of non-misnomers. There are some things that simply draw confusion due to readers' assumptions, not because they are nominally misleading. a_boardley (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christian / Creation Science

Said to be misnomer due to religious affiliation, creation science is a merger of science and a nonsecular view of the origins of the universe. I'm not advocating that creation science is pure science, just that it's not pure religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.13.190 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's far closer to religion than it is science. From Creation science: "Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist and conservative Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and mount a challenge against the scientifically accepted theory of evolution". But, since this article has a lot of crap in it anyway, if other's agree with you I wouldn't object to you removing it. But let's wait and see. Ward3001 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be closer to science than it is to religion, but is still contradicts information on other wikipedia pages, for example the creationism page. On that page, it is clearly claimed that creationism intends to be scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.131.188 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Creationism is not closer to science. From the lead sentence of Creationism: "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities" (bold text added). Ward3001 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Indians

Indians are not so named because someone thought they reached India. This is wrong. Stop perpetuating this myth. He did not think he landed in India, he knew the world was round, and he knew he wasn't anywhere remotely close to where he wanted to be. I am removing the affected section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.169.70.126 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No one calls gelatin "Jell-O"

Someone has repeatedly placed an item in the article as an example of "Transference of a well-known product brand name into a genericized trademark", claiming that "Jell-O" is used generically for "gelatin". I am 58 years old, a native English speaker, and I have lived throughout the United States. I have never heard anyone refer to gelatin as "Jell-O". If someone is listing the ingredients used to make jelly, for example, he does not say "add Jell-O". It's always "add gelatin".
Gelatin has uses other than making Jell-O, and in those situation it is always referred to as gelatin. Now, I have heard it the other way around, meaning I have heard some older people refer to Jell-O as a "gelatin dessert". And, in fact, some people inaccurately call gelatin desserts Jell-O that don't have the Jell-O brand. But calling a different gelatin dessert Jell-O is not the same as calling gelatin Jell-O (read the Witktionary explanation at wikt:Jell-O).
If enough people form a consensus here to include "Jell-O" as synonymous with "gelatin", I'll accept it. But unless that happens, that item needs to remain out of the article. It is simply one or two very confused people who insist on putting it into an article that is already full of ridiculous information. Ward3001 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sports teams

A team that moves and does not change its nickname (e.g., Brooklyn Dodgers became Los Angeles Dodgers; New York Giants became the San Francisco Giants) is NOT a misnomer. It's simply a team that moved and didn't change its name. There is nothing inherently a misnomer in the nickname a team decides to use. A team can call themselves anything they want, so if the Dodgers decided not to change it when they left Brooklyn, that's simply keeping a name, not a misnomer. Now, if they use one city in their name but their home field is in another city, that might be a misnomer, depending on the specifics. Thus, "The New York Jets and New York Giants play in East Rutherford, New Jersey" might accurately be described as a misnomer. Ward3001 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "issue" templates

issue templates are generally bad because they dont communicate anything. They dont say WHAT the complainer is complaining about. This is especially true for loose catagories like this one. If you have a problem put it on the individual item, or actually fix it!Scientus (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Life sentence'

A life sentence in the UK is not a life sentence, and can be for as little as 12 years. Is that a misnomer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.4.216 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's roughly the same as the U.S., in which there is a parole system that sometimes reduces sentences for various reasons after part of it is served. That is not a misnomer because the sentence originally is for life but was reduced. Ward3001 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The free market not free?

Based on what I know, there is insufficient reason to conclude that the free market (ideology) is not free (opposite of controlled), relatively speaking (to other ideologies). Not, at least, enough so that is can be stated so on a Wikipedia article. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tidal Wave/Tsunami

Against my better judgment, I've put in a counterpoint to "tidal wave" being a misnomer. The approach taken is probably too provocative, but the point is valid:

The usage "tidal wave" predates "tsunami" and, up until the Boxing Day event, had been consistently used by people who clearly understood that the cause was not a gravitational gradient. For example -- and now I suppose I'll have to look these up again -- the BBC initially referred to the Boxing Day tidal wave as a tidal wave. There's also an account of a lighthouse in Alaska being swamped by a tidal wave in the 1940s. The officer on duty felt an earthquake, then experienced the tidal wave and clearly linked the two.

The key here is that tide originally referred to things happening, as in "good tidings" or "Christmas tide" (cf. German zeit, Dutch tijd, both meaning time). The tides of the sea were a specialized usage. For example, in the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer uses tide several times in the broader sense but only once to refer to the lunar tides. The first gravitational explanation of the lunar tides was given by Newton in the 17th century, but such usages as storm tide and red tide were accepted centuries later. One cannot argue that this was out of ignorance. Nor can one argue that insisting that tide be restricted to gravitational effects is somehow blessed by science. Atmospheric tides, for example, are caused by thermal expansion and contraction.

In a case like algal bloom one can argue that the more formal term is more accurate and descriptive of the underlying causes. But in a case like storm surge for storm tide the difference is purely stylistic, and in the case of tsunami for tidal wave, downright capricious. Surely earthquake surge would be "more correct" than either? -Dmh (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why free market economy is a disnomer

Why 'free market economy' is put onto list in 'An older name being retained even in the face of newer information'? If one is stating that free market is not free I guess it violates NPOV. If it describes the current economic system I guess it should be explained. Uzytkownik (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. In later section it is explained - but still one may argue that freedom of markets does not refere to lack of scarcity or any limitations in the same way as freedom of people do not involve lack of gravity. I guess it may be too controvertial for an example (however pointing different points of view would not be out-of-place in page about phylosphy of freedom). Uzytkownik (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brass/Woodwind Instruments

First, taking the following entry as true:

||"Brass and woodwind musical instruments are distinguished not by the materials of which they are made, but by the way in which the player controls the vibrating column of air."

it would be more appropriately called a misconception and would belong in the List of common misconceptions. The misconception addressed is not contrary to the name (brass or woodwind), thus I believe those not to be misnomers.

Second, if they were misnomers, they would better fit in the section "Ambiguity". Justus R (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what do you believe is the real difference between brass and woodwind instruments? And to which section of the orchestra does the Western concert flute really belong? Does that article need correction? -- Smjg (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I am not being clear. Assuming your proposed addition as quoted above to be true, then by definition, those are not misnomers. In fact, the belief that they were misnomers would be a misconception. What I may or may not believe to be the real difference between brass and woodwind instruments is of no real significance in this matter.Justus R (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a proposed addition. It's an actual addition that you decided to delete for some reason of which I still can't make head, tail or any other body part. How, exactly, is what I wrote different from the terms "brass instrument" and "woodwind instrument" being misnomers? And how, exactly, would you write this issue on List of common misconceptions? And how can the facts be "of no real significance"? -- Smjg (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us be clear on the subject of our disagreement. It is not my purpose here to argue with the basic facts that you have stated in the addition you made and which I deleted and which is quoted in full above. That is why my opinion on the truth value of that addition is of no real significance in this matter. It is not significant because it is not germane. Neither do I quibble with the wording of your addition. My objection to the inclusion of that addition is that when taken at face value, it does not describe a misnomer. Rather, it explains the terms "brass" and "woodwind" in the context of the classification of wind instruments and explains why neither term is a misnomer. Since your addition explains why neither term is a misnomer, it does not belong in a list of misnomers - which this article has become.

I should better have originally written, "A belief that the proper classification of wind instruments as 'brass' or 'woodwind' are distinguished by the materials of which they are made would be more appropriately called a misconception and would belong in the List of common misconceptions." As to how to compose an entry for this issue within that article, that is beyond the scope of the discussion of this article.Justus R (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Since your addition explains why neither term is a misnomer" — what on earth are you on about?

Brass instruments are not necessarily made of brass. Therefore, the term "brass instrument" is a misnomer. You OTOH seem to be claiming that, because brass instruments are not necessarily made of brass, the term "brass instrument" is not a misnomer. This I don't understand all; nor do I understand why you're singling out my addition over all the rest.

"A belief that the proper classification of wind instruments as 'brass' or 'woodwind' are distinguished by the materials of which they are made would be more appropriately called a misconception and would belong in the List of common misconceptions." — My addition didn't mention any such belief. If you've evidence that such a belief is common, by all means add it to List of common misconceptions and cite that evidence. But it's an entirely separate issue from the inappropriateness of the names, which is the very definition of a misnomer whether you go by my existing vocabulary, the article intro or the vast majority of OneLook hits. How does your dictionary define it? -- Smjg (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have only an "American Heritage Dictionary" in my house, my Merriam Webster's having worn out. I do not trust American Heritage to supply precise definitions so I will not cite it here. There seems to be a stable definition on Wiktionary, which 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.

My initial reaction to the addition under discussion here was that it contained the implication that the names "brass" and "woodwind" were properly assigned to the instruments "not by the materials of which they are made, but by the way in which the player controls the vibrating column of air." Inasmuch as the instruments were distinguished properly under this scheme - and inasmuch as there was no explanation that certain brass instruments are commonly made of materials other than brass and certain woodwind instruments are commonly made of materials other than wood - the logical conclusion is that the categorization of those instruments as brass or woodwind instruments are not misnomers because when properly understood, they are not misleading.

Let me state your position as I infer from the discussion so far:

A person unfamiliar with the nomenclature of musical instruments would likely assume that "brass instrument" would refer only to an instrument made predominantly of brass and "woodwind instrument" would refer to a wind instrument only made predominantly of wood. Inasmuch as the materials from which those instruments are made are not necessarily brass or wood, respectively, the terms are misleading and, therefore, are misnomers.

Please correct me if am wrong. I do not want to misrepresent your position. However, if this is close to the mark, then I will concede that it may be appropriate to include these examples on a list of misnomers, but with an exposition that more clearly indicates why the terms can be considered misnomers.

As far as other things on the list, well, I really think it would be a service to have a shorter article on misnomers, with only one or two examples of each identified type. The rest could go into a "List of Common Misnomers". I have not pursued this as yet, however. Please do not feel like I am picking on you. It is just that this was new and it got my attention.Justus R (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional Misnomers

I didn't see a mention of intentional misnomers, e.g. "Antivirus Pro" or "Clear Skies Initiative". The latter being too controversial for a good example, buy you get the point. A misnomer given with the intent of misleading others. MrYdobon (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)