Talk:Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon at the Reference desk.

Greece Start‑class Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Comment

Okay, this word isn't found in normal dictionarys....but that doesn't mean it's unencyclopediec. Excuse my spelling. By the way, does anyone know how to pronouce it???

99.245.238.83 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC) By: Me!Me![reply]

Whoa it's off the page!Emma Hordika (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why did someone decide to use the full name?

Before I tell you, I should tell you something. "Through the Looking-Glass" is the article, while the same name (but with the subtitle "And What Alice Found There" has been supported to be a redirect. Also, "Llanfairpwllgwyngyll" is the article, while the extended name (which is "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch") has been supported to be a redirect.

So, now that you know, I'll ask the question again. Why did someone decide to use the full name? ANSWER ME! --172.189.209.104 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the original motivation, but I would ask what you suggest as an alternative? There are no reasonable standards for abbreviating such an unreasonable word.Beeblbrox (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read the deletion discussion from the link at the top of the page. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word appears twice?

The article currently says, "The dish's name is mentioned only twice, in one of the last speeches of the play." However, based on the English translations I have seen, it only appears once. Can anyone confirm the number of appearances? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short Hyphen?

The article title may be a lost cause, but I think the article text itself may benefit from the unorthodox “short hyphen” character (HTML entity ) for the sake of line breaking in *ahem* the word of the topic at hand. There are, however, technical difficulties that may arise from this, as not all browsers treat the character the same way (it has to do with ucky unspecific specifications). Thoughts? -BRPXQZME (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lopado...

I was looking at the aforementioned article with a long title, and I noticed that you had added ouzo to the list of ingredients. If this was simply random nonsense, then you need do nothing further, as I have reverted it. However, if this was a good faith edit, then I would like to hear what your basis for it was. Please feel free to respond to this query on the article's talk page, as I have it on my watchlist. Many thanks. Atelaes (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a joke. If you look again at my revision of the article, you'll see that I cited a book as a source, namely G. Vogel (1980) The Big Book Of Amazing Facts Playmore Pubs, which says, "This word is the name of a food - a fricassee made of 17 sweet and sour ingredients, including brains, honey, mullet, vinegar, pickles, and the Greek liqueur Ouzo."--The Machine (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that, but unfortunately I cannot access the book cited, so I could not read the text you were reading. I guess my confusion ultimately lies in the basis for such an assertion. The word contains no components which could be translated as ouzo, at least none that I can find (if you follow the Wiktionary link, the etymology section has all the components broken down and linked). Unless the source is claiming that one of the specific components can be translated as ouzo, we have to reject its claims. Ultimately, the dish is fictitious, and so some kind of historical assessment is moot. We can only approach it from a linguistic perspective. Atelaes (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you are telling The Machine that the published source he mentions must be discounted because it disagrees with what you believe to be true. I don't think that's the way it works. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking what the source's reasoning is, i.e. what they're basing that assertion upon. Atelaes (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the book's basis for including ouzo is? It doesn't say. But then, I wouldn't expect it to. It's a non-fiction book and I would have thought that that fact alone would be enough unless there was any particular reason to doubt what it says.

Which brings me to the Wiktionary entry. I don't think that it can be used as a basis for a counter-argument because the etymology section seems to be incomplete. Look:-

λοπάς(dish, meal) Not an ingredient
τέμαχος(fish slice) 1
σέλαχος(shark, ray) 2
γαλεός(dogfish, small shark) 3
κρανίον(head) Not an ingredient
λείψανον(remnant) Not an ingredient
δριμύς(sharp, pungent) Not an ingredient
ὑπότριμμα(generally sharp-tasting dish of several ingredients grated and pounded together) Not an ingredient
σίλφιον(laserwort) 4
κάραβος(crab, beetle, or crayfish) 5
μέλι(honey) 6
κατακεχυμένος(poured down) (Perfect middle/passive participle of καταχέω) Not an ingredient
κίχλη(wrasse,thrush) 7
ἐπί(upon, on top of) Not an ingredient
κόσσυφος(a kind of sea-fish or blackbird) 8
φάττα(wood pigeon) 9
περιστερός(domestic pigeon) 10
ἀλεκτρυών(chicken) 11
ὀπτός(roasted, baked) Not an ingredient
κεφάλιον(diminutive of "head") Not an ingredient
κίγκλος(dabchick) 12
πέλεια(pigeon) 13
λαγῷος(hare) 14
σίραιον(new wine boiled down) 15
βαφή(dipping) Not an ingredient
τραγανός(crunchy) Not an ingredient
πτέρυξ(wing, fin) 16

Only sixteen ingredients. One short.--The Machine (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My point is that the book cannot have a proper basis for that assumption. This is not a real dish. This is a play on words which Aristophanes used to ridicule the sometimes agglutinating habit of Greek. It is fictional. There is no other basis for an assertion of what is in it other than the words which make up the larger word. Atelaes (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book will have a proper basis for including ouzo. It just doesn't say what that basis is because that's not the focus of the book's article (it's about long words).

As far as I can see, it's quite simple:-

We know that Lopado...[e.t.c.] has 17 ingredients.
Wiktionary's definition lists 16 ingredients, leaving one unaccounted for.
The Big Book Of Amazing Facts says that the dish has ouzo in it.
Ouzo is not among the 16 ingredients already mentioned on Wiktionary.

The obvious conclusion is that that missing seventeenth ingredient must be ouzo. --The Machine (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reiterate my point, that since this is not a real dish, but a fictional one, the only basis for such an assertion is a linguistic one. Also, I am curious about the basis for the assertion of 17 ingredients. Is that simply from the article? One could certainly interpret different numbers of ingredients. Perhaps λείψανον could be interpreted as the 17th ingredient (I'm inclined to agree with your count myself, but my point is that it's somewhat subjective). Finally, I don't think we should simply accept any written source as automatically authoritative and infallible. What with some of the studies showing Encyclopedia Brittanica to have similar numbers of errors to our own 'pedia, I think we have to allow common sense to serve as a filtering mechanism. Which is not to say that citing printed sources is a bad idea, by any means. Atelaes (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore to this discussion, may I ask why the list on this page is not the same as the elements which make up the name. For example, I do not see cheese (tyris) anywhere. This is confusing. [[User:Nonmuscascapto|&66030;]] [[User_talk:Nonmuscascapto|<small>NMC</small>]] (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (sorry, signature broken at the moment)[reply]

Ouzo didn't exist when Aristophanes was writing. It's hard to believe it could have been an ingredient. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Somebody should DEFINITELY put together an IPA pronunciation for this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.78.180 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be rather pointless to put such a thing for the English transliteration, as I imagine it is said so little that no typical pronunciation could be garnered. However, an IPA for the Ancient Greek term is worthwhile, but not here. It belongs in a dictionary. Atelaes (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this will get deleted but... hehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.116.172 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just call this article 'Longest word in Greek'

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon → Longest word in Greek — The current title is unreasonably long, and there are similar existing Wikipedia articles: Longest word in Turkish and Longest word in Spanish. Objectivesea (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a made up word. Therefore, it is in Greek, but anyone make up an even longer one. This article refers to the particular word of Aristophanes. --FocalPoint (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title would be a perfectly reasonable redirect; but as a title it misstates the scope of the article. There was a longest word in Greek before Aristophanes was born, shorter than this; there may be some modern Greek pedant coining a longer word now. Both these would belong in the new article (as would a papyrus with a word from the Middle Comedy), but not this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move per Pmanderson. Though I have to say, this word gives Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch and Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu a run for their money. @harej 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever way this goes, shorten the title. It's widening the page on a 2000px wide display. I'm not convinced that this merits its own article outside of Assemblywomen other than for being long. I notice Ron Jeremy's penis does not have its own article separate from Ron Jeremy, even though I'm told that like this word it's both long and difficult to get one's mouth around. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about Rasputin's penis, which does have its own article. Jafeluv (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too must sadly oppose this move - per the precedent at the other language wikis for this article. Deletion discussions are another thing altogether. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about: Aristophanes' long or culinary word in Assemblywomen?

Catalographer (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Category:Ancient Greek cuisine and Category:Ancient Greek comedy I just used the short link Lopado...pterygon . The long form was not at all helpful for the reader.Catalographer (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First word of the article appears to have been edited/vandalized?

The first word of the article is probably supposed to be the word itself, but it looks like someone has changed it. I didn't want to change it back for fear of misspelling/perpetuating the problem.Weesasuzi (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are several slightly different ways to transliterate ancient Greek, and the word used more than one of them, inconsistently. (And one simple error: gamma before another guttural is a nasal ng, as in Άγγελος, angel; spelled in English n. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an ö in there? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a diaeresis. The Greek has an omega with iota subscript followed by a omicron. I suppose it ought to be oö or oio - probably the former, but switch if you disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 25 Septeber 2009 (UTC)

I think oö is preferable. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more mistake is, if you check carefully:

On the article's name its written : Lopad...okranioleipsanodrimhypotrim... And the first word is : Lopad...ocranioleipsanodrimhypotrim... Extra999 Extra999 (talk 23:29, 29 September 2009

Anyboy has corrected it now. --Extra999 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this rather sounds like a recipe than a word. --88.229.2.73 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I, too, would like to know how to pronounce it, and where the 'breaks' occur to make sense of where the "fish slices" separates from the "Fish of the Elasmobranchii subclass" segments, etc.68.234.38.20 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Diana very very longest word lopadotemachogaleokranioleisanodrimmhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakekich[reply]

Longest URL?

I did a Google search for the longest URL. When I compared it with this article's URL the article's was longer.

I think this *might* be the world's longest URL.... 99.135.250.148 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about considering a Guinness World Record for this? :) extra999 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My website's referral log once showed a link from a search page whose URL may have been longer because it contained a lot of redundant clutter. —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]