Talk:Misnomer

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)

But it is a misnomer if used in the context of emails that use no carbon paper.129.63.129.196 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

but aren't the Thompson Twins two characters in Tin Tin who are twins, and the band is simply named after them in homage? The name might be misleading literally, but many many bands have names that are misleading. 71.190.70.163 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

"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)

From my experience, Easter week is the week leading up to Easter Sunday, as it celebrates the last week of Christ's life leading up to his resurrection. For instance, Easter Friday is Good Friday, the day of Christ's crucifixion. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Americas

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.26.135 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2009‎

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alan Parsons was a founding member of The Alan Parsons Project, but he wasn't the founder; that was Eric Woolfson. Parsons and Woolfson agreed between them that although the group was strictly speaking "The Eric Woolfson Project", somehow "The Alan Parsons Project" sounds better. Hence this is indeed a misnomer. — 188.29.241.246 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a misnomer. Bands can name themselves anything they want. When The Beatles were called The Silver Beetles, the fact that no insects were in the band did not make the name a misnomer. Cresix (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

"Democratic" need not have been a misnomer, but was largely rooted in a different definition of what "democracy" means. (Cf. socialist literature.) A possible justification could be through a drift of intentions and practice over time, causing even the socialist definition to be misapplied.94.220.254.157 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Would suggest that at least proponents of creation science believe they are working within the scientific method, and that arguments about it being "not a science" are based on particular philospohies of what science is. Standard 'scientific' views of the world may be said to be based on a naturalistic philosophy which precludes any supernatural means, which may be suggested to be just as much dogmatic belief as creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.144.241 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument may or may not have merit (I believe it does not; people may "think" lots of things that are not based in reality), but that is really beside the point. There's too much crap in this article already (see discussion below). We don't need to include a debate in this article about what science is or what creationists consider science to be. The solution is to completely remove the item because it is not clearly a misnomer. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

If by "he" you refer to Columbus, your statements are not compatible with any source I know of. In particular, while Columbus (and many others) knew that the world was round, he was under the misimpression that the circumference was far shorter than it actually is. 94.220.254.157 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You don't see any mention of these because they are not misnomers, intentional or otherwise. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but these phrases are not misnomers. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 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)

Misnomer misnomers

The entries at Naming peculiar to the originator's world view, "America", "driveway", and "parkway" are all suspect. The name of the country is United States of America so using the adjective "American" is hardly a misnomer just because there are other uses of it. Parkways are ways (i.e., roads) through parks, hardly a misnomer. And driveways are ways (i.e., paths) to drive to one's dwelling. That one might also park, sell goods, or conduct other activities on them as well does not make the word a misnomer. Please present (preferably referenced) evidence of misnomerness or delete. — AjaxSmack 00:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Iceland and Greenland

Iceland and Greenland are not misnomers. Their names were purposefully given by Norseman so that other travels would avoid the more hospitable Iceland for Greenland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they are not misnomers. Read the definition of misnomer at the beginning of the article: "suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue". Regardless of how they got their names, "Iceland" suggest a place that is icy, which today is known to be untrue; "Greenland" suggests a place that is mostly green, which today is know to be untrue. Cresix (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Radio

I would agree insofar as mostly - and of course wrongly - the receiver is called a radio and not (only) the transmitter. But this doesn't fit into your suggested category (older name being retained as the thing named evolved). 80.141.186.238 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed radio from the list. There are plenty of other examples. Cresix (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Source?

Under "Sources of misnomers", we find this:

"In the video game series "Donkey Kong", the main character represented is an ape & not an actual donkey."

I'd call that an example, wouldn't you? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a misnomer. Video game makers can name their games any way they wish. No one has claimed that a depiction of an ape is a donkey. Pac-Man does not portray a "man", and it doesn't represent a misnomer either. The examples for this article need to be clear and unequivocal because by consensus the number of examples is limited. If we add everyone's idea of what a misnomer might be, the article would go on endlessly. Cresix (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Sodium bicarbonate

Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3 or baking soda) is a misnomer in that the 'bi' seems to suggest that there are two of something in the chemical formula which as you can see from the formula is untrue. From a quick reading around the web it seems that it was called 'bi'carbonate because in reactions it will produce twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of sodium as did another compound that was called Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3 or washing soda) and may have been named at a time when it wasn't possible to work out the chemical formula. It seems the name was kept even though we now know the true formula doesn't contain two carbonates. Infact the modern names of Sodium bicarbonate and Sodium carbonate are Sodium hydrogen carbonate and Disodium carbonate. There are already articles on both of these compounds and neither describes the reasoning behind the names. So I don't know if there should be a mention of it here or in those two articles or perhaps it is already out there in an article on chemical naming but I couldn't find it. bluetetrahedron (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is wrong. The prefix bi means "hydrogen" in cases such as bicarbonate, bisulfite, bisulfate, and bisulfide. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute of criteria on naming: freeway

I removed the example

• Dispute of criteria on naming. For instance, freeways are generally divided highways with no at-grade intersections or private access, and expressways have no private access but select crossroads. However, two-lane freeway often refers to 2-lane roads without private access that sometimes have at-grade intersections.

This example is highly problematic. 1. both freeway links redirect to articles that don't have "freeway" in their names. 2. The term freeway refers to a limited access road accessed without toll, i.e. free. What would be a misnomer would be using the word freeway for a toll road. Therefore, if "Dispute on criteria on naming" is to be used, a better example should be provided, or if this example is to be used, it needs to be explained differently, explaining the dispute over what it is to be a freeway in the first place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Extremely exhaustive"

Exhaustive means something that can run out (something that is not infinite). However, "extremely exhaustive" refers to a huge catalogue or list; something that can run out, but will not easily. However a non-english speaker would assume "extremely exhaustive" means "runs out easily/quickly". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.32.106 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, intended for English speakers. Additionally, "exhaustive" means "including every possible element". Cresix (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Misnomers

I am nominating this category for deletion. In case (i) this goes ahead and (ii) it contains any examples that could usefully be listed in this article, the current contents are:

• Brick and mortar
• Djun djun
• Hangnail
• iPhone Touch
• List of misnamed theorems
• Patrick of Avernia
• Radio edit
• Tin foil
• Welsh onion

– Fayenatic L (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether the category should be deleted. But please note that by consensus, no new examples are to be added to the article without first achieving consensus here. A serious problem with this article in the past is that lots of people decided to add their favorite example, most of which were not even misnomers, resulting in an overbloated article full of crap. Some of the items above were were removed for that reason, and some are not even misnomers. If the category is deleted, so be it; but please keep these examples out of the article. Cresix (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. The CFD discussion is here. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Greenland - based on a similarity?

"Some of the sources of misnomers are: [...] A name being based on a similarity in a particular aspect (e.g. [...] Greenland is icy ...".

"Greenland" may be a misnomer, but how is it "based on a similarity in a particular aspect"? Nurg (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The name is not based on a similarity. See Greenland#Etymology. Wahrmund (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so that needs to be deleted. And "Iceland", how is that "based on a similarity in a particular aspect"? Nurg (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Webster's 3rd says the name comes from Old Norse "iss" (ice) + "land." Wahrmund (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so is Iceland named after a similarity to ice, rather than being named after ice itself? Nurg (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited the section and removed Iceland, which is not a misnomer at all. Hopefully, this will be okay. Wahrmund (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pencil leads never contained lead. I am moving pencils to the right section

According to the Wikipeida page for pencils and its supporting documents, pencil lead has always been made of graphite and not lead. The misnomer "pencil lead" was applied because the early users of graphite misidentified it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.196 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. The article sounds okay upon reading it a second time. Perhaps the language could be cleaned up so as not to be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.196 (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)