User talk:Gawaon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Happy holidays!

Hello Gawaon: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 07:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks a lot, and the same to you! Gawaon (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Synecdoche IPA

A synecdoche is a figure of speech, so when you see something discussing words and then (synecdoche) in brackets one may assume that it refers to synecdoches, not the Wikipedia article for synecdoche. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, but if you explain the link to synecdoche like that, how would you explain the links to coup d'etat, Leicester, and Ralph Fiennes, likewise given in parentheses in the same sentence? I'd say the context makes it clear enough that these are all examples. Gawaon (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't figures of speech. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant, clearly readers will evaluate the sentence as a whole. But if you think that that example should be removed, I suggest you raise the point at the talk page of the page in question. Or you find another example page title that you don't consider confusing. Personally I think having these examples makes sense and should be kept, but I don't particularly care about which article is used as example. Gawaon (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you still can't understand my reasoning there is no point in carrying this on any further. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Gawaon. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me! I think I'll fill out your questionnaire, but it'll be a while since I'm currently quite busy elsewhere. Gawaon (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to take your time, there isn't a deadline. Thanks for your interest! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Christie Cleek

Hi Gawaon, I’ve only just created a Wikipedia account so I’m new to the editing process, but I noticed that you’d deleted a line I added to the Christie Cleek page about a novel I wrote on the legendary tale and character. It would be great if you could advise how to go about providing a reliable source to establish relevance, as per the note in the revision history. For info, the book was reviewed in the mainstream media and online sales sites such as Amazon, all pretty favourably (more details on my website and Amazon ). The novel, which involved significant historical research, is also important as it is (as far as I know) the only contemporary novel based on this fascinating and little-known tale in Scottish history. Look forward to your thoughts. FreshmanFalt FreshmanFalt (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi FreshmanFalt, welcome to Wikipedia! If there are independent book reviews that mention the book is about Cleek, that would be fine sources. Just add one of these reviews (or more) if readding the text in question. If you use the source editor, you can click Templates / Cite web to easily cite a website. If you use the visual editor, I don't know the details (since I don't use that editor), but there should be a convenient way to add references too. Gawaon (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the advice Gawaon. I've cited a book review as evidence of reliable source etc, with the footnote number linking to the newspaper info in the References section. But there might now be an issue with the formatting of the References section, ie the one I've just added is a numbered footnote but the others are just bullet points. Do you think that's something that needs revised? FreshmanFalt (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I split it into two separate sections, so it's fine now. Gawaon (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Journal page numbers

Just to say I was simply following Wikipedia:Citing sources - we don't need to cite an actual page for a journal article. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

WikiHoax question

Hello, I see you are a frequent contributor to the the List of hoaxes on Wikipedia article, so I'm hoping you could give some guidance.

The page Cypriot Mouse has had the claim Originally, Cucchi wanted to call it Mus Aphrodite, as Cyprus is the birthplace of Aphrodite according to Greek mythology. in some form or another since the article's creation in 2006, completely unsourced. I did a small tidy-up of the article recently and in checking sources, could not find this claim anywhere that wasn't obvious citogenesis.

The article was started by someone who seems to have been very young in 2006, making misguided (but good faith?) changes to various animal articles right around that time. It was created the same day as the earliest BBC and AP reporting went out, and there's a tiny possibility this was mentioned somewhere else online that has since been lost to time, but I'm not convinced.

I guess my question is how to proceed? It really feels like trying to prove a negative! In a wiki-rules sense it should be obvious to just delete that sentence and go on with my life, but the fact it has stood unchallenged for 18 years gives me pause.

Thanks in advance, REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I see it has been tagged as "citation needed" for two months, so frankly I'd simply delete it without further ado. In the unlikely case that somebody actually does have a reference for it, they can still re-add it. You can then also add it to the list of hoaxes if you want to, though since nobody outside of Wikipedia seems to have picked it up I probably wouldn't bother. Gawaon (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you didn't yet, but I have deleted the statement now. Gawaon (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I just completely forgot to respond to this! Thanks for the reply and for taking out that sentence. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Kazakh Famine

I wanted to write a thank you for upkeeping the Kazakh famine page! I added a lot of content years ago, and was very worried it would continue to be politically altered. I no longer check wikipedia as much due to other obligations, but when I do I see your upkeep and very excellent edits to the page. I really appreciate the time you take to ensure that it is fair, balanced, and remains so. Best ~ Dsrlisan85 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! I haven't done much work on the Kazakh famine of 1930–1933 article, but I sure have it on my watchlist and so keep an eye on it. Gawaon (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Dear Gawaon,
The issue around DMY/MDY dates on Pope Leo XIV's article has been tabled at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I have not discarded the RfC due to controversy about whether or not that is appropriate. As you have been reasonably involved in this issue, this is letting you know that it is requested that you submit a summary of dispute on the DRN entry for this issue.
Thank you for time in the RfC and more broadly on this issue. JacobTheRox (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, it was an absurd idea to report an active RFC to the DRN. What did you expect? RFCs are a way to resolve conflict, so while they are ongoing there is certainly no need for any outside intervention. (Except possibly when the tone used by some editors becomes totally inappropriate, which was clearly not the case here.) Gawaon (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to add a link

Hello, I’m requesting to add a link of Kingdom of Aboh to the Igbo people page, where it’s various polities are listed in the beginning paragraph (where Nri, Agbor, Onitsha etc) are 168.91.60.91 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, why are you writing this on my talk page? Talk:Igbo people is the better place for such suggestions. Gawaon (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Leopold II

Hey! I had edited in an alleged son of Leopold II a few days prior, and I was just notified of your revision of the information. I understand that it is alleged, but I did write that in my original edit, and whether De Wiart denied Leopold II being his father or not does not change the paternity speculation around the time of his birth. I would like to put my edits back in a way that suits you, hence why I'm here.

Thank you! 77eagle (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

According to Adrian Carton de Wiart, he wasn't actually Leopold's son, so why mention him there? Wikipedia is not the place to collect random speculations. Gawaon (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

once again, it’s not a random speculation. Many people at the time, and during his lifetime, believed he was the son of Leopold. It makes sense one would try and deny any claims that he would be illegitimate, but circumstantial evidence and the basic eye test dispute the standard. 77eagle (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As long as his own article clearly says that he wasn't Leopold's son, there is no reason to say anything else in the article on Leopold. Gawaon (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It does not explicitly say he wasn’t Leopold’s son. 77eagle (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't have the space to describe everything that may or may not have been the case. Gawaon (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You have the space, and you do use it. I have several examples of speculated royal children or fathers who have dedicated spots on their pages. August von Senarclens de Grancy is one of them. 77eagle (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Block 13 "reliable source" in lost TV

Hi there! I just want to say thanks to you for helping me realize my mistakes on citations. I am a rookie and that was my 1st actual edit (I know quite a bit about the show). Many thanks and have a wonderful day! Finalities (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I have made some further changes to your edit and shortened it a bit since I don't think we need that many details in the general Lost television broadcast article. Happy to discuss this further if you see the need; or just change it yourself it you think that's helpful. Gawaon (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the changes! I do tend to overexplain a lot of stuff and add unnecessary details (ask my English teacher about it lol) so you have been a huge help! I went and reviewed your changes and they seem nice and I don't think I need to add any changes.

One more thing; how do you add those badges that say "this user supports trans rights" or "this user hates Nazis" on your userpage? I want to add some that apply to me as well. Many thanks for your help! Finalities (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome! Another editor has now modified it further and removed some content, but that can't be helped, I guess. For the userboxes (that's how they are called), just check the source code of a page that has them to see how it's done (you can click the "edit" link to do so, just don't change anything). Any single one is included by a command like {{User:FormalDude/Userboxes/lgbt}} (that's the one for trans rights). There is essentially an infinite number of them, so as you navigate other editors' user pages you might collect more of them and add those you like to your own page – that's how I do it, in any case. I have arranged them in a table-like structure – again, see the source code on how to do that, if you want to. Gawaon (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

List of French serial killers

Hello. I wanted to have a chat because I don't understand why not add some serial killers to the list, when a French Wikipedia page exists for them: Jean-Claude Bonnal, Mohamed Faleh, Jacques Fruminet, Maurice Gateaux, Poncé Gaudissard, Michel Lambin, Joël Matencio, André Pauletto, Jean-Marc Petroff, Xavier Philippe, Franck Siegler, Michel Sydor and Pierre Bodein? L'ombre d'un Soupçon (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page, let's keep the discussion there. Gawaon (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hansel and Gretel

You removed all lines. FloatingIslesLoreKeeper (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because you tried to add some unnecessary details. Remember that a plot covers just the main elements of a work, there is no need to include every detail. "Hansel and Gretel" is just a fairly short fairy tail, and with over 600 words the Plot section was already very long before you changed anything. Unless we overlooked anything essential (which I doubt), there is no need for more. Gawaon (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

But at least one line could be kept? --FloatingIslesLoreKeeper (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. Which line, specifically, do you mean, and why should it be added? Gawaon (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Prerequisite for a change to the MOS

Hi, Gawaon! If you'll permit me, I want to follow up on your suggestion that MOS should only be changed when "all agree that a change . . . is helpful." Read literally, that means there would be no change when 99 editors believe a proposed change is an improvement and 1 editor believes it isn't - that editor wouldn't have to think the proposal is harmful, just that it doesn't move the ball forward. Is that what you were saying? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

No. Gawaon (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, my bad for not including the follow up question in my post. Here it is: What were you saying? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Just read it again, I can't say everything twice. And if you think you can build WP:Consensus for a change to the MOS, just go ahead and try to do it. If you can find 10, 20, or 100 editors all in favour of a changed wording, I surely won't stand in the way. But if you hope for a specific percentage, I can't give you that. That's not how Wikipedia works, as you'll probably know yourself. Gawaon (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You are the expert on what you meant, so the meaning seems clear to you. The evidence shows it isn't clear to me. I am asking for your help to understand.

If a meaningful number of editors think a proposed change is helpful and a meaningful number think it is not necessary (but also not harmful), do you believe the change should be made or not? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't answer that abstractly, since I would judge by the content of what's proposed, not by the number of people who support it. As it says on my user page: "This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake." Gawaon (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Jack and the Beanstalk

Since the post about the numerous errors in the Jack and the Beanstalk synopsis was revdeled from Talk:Jack and the Beanstalk, here it is:

The version in the cited source is the Joseph Jacobs one, which can also be found here. The current summary contains several errors:

• The story never refers to the giant's house as a "castle".
• Jack does not "find the giant's wife in the kitchen". The story specifies that Jack first sees her on the doorstep, outside.
• Could you please give me something to eat? I am so hungry! is not an accurate quote. What Jack says here is Good morning, mum. Could you be so kind as to give me some breakfast.
• There is no boy in here! is also not an accurate quote. What the giantess says is Nonsense, dear, you’re dreaming. Or perhaps you smell the scraps of that little boy you liked so much for yesterday’s dinner.
• In the night is not accurate. In the story, the giant goes to sleep after breakfast, and Jack escapes then.
• Jack never hides "under the bed". He hides in the oven the first two times, and in the copper the third time.
• Jack does not meet the giant's wife at all the third time. Rather, he sneaks into the house, probably because she knows by then that he is a thief.
• Help master! A boy is stealing me! is not an accurate quote. The harp simply calls Master! Master!

All of this can be solved simply by restoring this version. As far as being "more vivid", a plot summary is not supposed to be vivid. See WP:PLOTSUMNOT.

As an aside, I was surprised by how different Andrew Lang's version was. Nevertheless, the current summary would not accurately reflect that one either. 201.148.125.126 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You are permanently blocked for sockpuppetry, so I probably shouldn't be talking with you anyway, but just a quick note: No worries, once I find the time I'll compare our story summary with the printed version we cite and correct any errors we might have made. I won't restore your version and there is no need to talk about it any more – I'll take care of it. Gawaon (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Type G adapters with europlug support

Hi, I don't have an immediate link to any website that produces the power strip itself, but here's a link to a web store's listing of the power strip.

https://mrdiy.com.my/products/hoyo-trailing-socket-4-gang-2m-9023256-001001

The store doesn't mention outright the feature, but notice the sticker on the power strip itself.

I also have a short demonstrating the feature on a similar power strip that also has that feature. Let me know if you want to see that too. RAM (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The image resolution is too low to read the sticker text, but yes, I can kinda guess it's there. But these are only power strips, which I wouldn't consider sufficiently notable since different manufacturers may have all kinds of models. What about wall sockets in Malaysia? Are they usually installed with this feature too? If so, it would be notable, but we would still need some kind of reference for it. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have not yet seen the feature on Malaysian wall sockets. But then again those sockets I've seen so far are older types, I have not been paying attention to newer installations. Nonetheless a quick google shows world-multi type sockets that accept Type-A, Type-I, Europlug and Type-G sockets, for example this one: https://shopee.sg/product/389644615/9562425262?gads_t_sig=VTJGc2RHVmtYMTlxTFVSVVRrdENkV1BNaHBLV2lHSzd2WEZjb2w0eUJubVRqTGM0U2UyME9RRG5DUHl5UFRCQjF1dGVoU1JnUEZ4UnVXR1orTnRYMUpKNmlLSk1MaHJoaUdzT2tMMFNDZEJrUG5WUEVHMzZudHlEL1Q3ZDB5d1I . It does show that these kind of wall sockets are out there, but you're right, it's more of an exception than the norm. RAM (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

But those are terrible multi-multi-sockets which will hopefully not become widespread in any country! Unless we find particular information on specific type C+G hybrid wall sockets becoming widespread in Malaysia (or other countries), I'd propose not to add this to the Europlug artile. Gawaon (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree to your proposal. RAM (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

SPI

Hi there, when you file a new SPI report, can you please make sure you use Twinkle or the SPI main page to do it? Both of those will automatically generate the SPI and format it correctly, so a clerk doesn't have to come by and fix it. (In this case since it was an easy block of an IP, I just blocked and removed the filing rather than bothering to fix anything.)

By the way, with really obvious cases like this one, you can report the IPs at WP:AIV. If you leave a link to the SPI case page, they shouldn't decline it as "not obviously vandalism", and AIV is usually faster. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, I had no idea how to do it, so I just copied & pasted from an earlier entry. Will use Twinkle in the future, thanks for letting me know! Gawaon (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Stranger Things s4 description

Saw your edit and I 100% agree! :)

Great work! Strongwranglers (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you 😊 Gawaon (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Shortening the Scream Queen description?

Hello! I just saw your recent work with how you've said the Scream queen description is too long, do you have any suggestions on shortening it then? I'm a frequent editor on the page as well. I just wouldn't want to make it too short, and you've been working on the site awhile, I'm still relatively a newer editor (in the grand scheme of Wikipedians). :) – Itsirlpidge (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Scream queens aren't really my area of expertise, so I wouldn't be surprised if you knew much more about them 🙂. I don't think the lead as such has to be shorter, but that single sentence with dozens of "queens" in them is sure irregular. I'd say it would be better to keep just about half a dozen (certainly no more than ten) of the best-known ones, and then add a few other sentences summarizing the rest of the article, as the lead is supposed to do. Gawaon (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I salute you and your work :)) – Itsirlpidge (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the lead looks much better now! Gawaon (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Neanderthal

I'm not sure but it seems the DOI for that article doesn't exist. It could as well never have existed at all.-- Carnby (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey! The DOI 10.1127/zma/82/1998/1 exists and is indeed correct. If I enter it directly as https://doi.org/10.1127/zma/82/1998/1 it resolves as it should. However, in the "cite journal" entry, the generated URL doesn't work for some reason – I have no idea why not. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I wrote to schweizerbart.de and now it works. Thanks anyway.-- Carnby (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for getting it fixed! Gawaon (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

chainsaw massacre revert

i actually don't know what the stylistic guide is for writing about narratives, but previous one basically spoils the plot point of the old man being alive right then, which is generally something to be avoided when writing in general, but again i have no idea what the stylistic guide is (my intention was it to be revealed in the summary at the same point as in the movie, not earlier), so if you could point me in the right direction, i would appreciate it. Haants (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't try to avoid spoilers in plot sections, see WP:SPOILER. If you don't want to be spoilered, don't read that section. Gawaon (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ogre has italian origin

Why did you remove my add, ogre can be really have italian heritage, orcus is from roman mithology and then italian! Cartoon Gamer (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Roman and Italian is not the same and the likely or possible sources of the term are already well-covered in the article. If you think that something relevant is missing, note that WP:reliable sources are needed for anything added to Wikipedia. It's not about what you think is true, but about what has been shown to be true (or likely or plausible). Gawaon (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Emily Neves

Hello. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Emily Neves#B-class/GA-class efforts, if you are interested in helping out. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

British English does not use the term "sedan". It is patently false to claim otherwise. I don't know what your motive is here, whether it's some sort of American chauvinism trying to force American vocabulary into British English, or if you are just genuinely ignorant of how unfamiliar the term "sedan" is to most people in the UK, but the point remains that you are trying to force a misleading tag into the article. It does not use British English. The current tag is an extraordinarily clear instruction to change all of the instances of "sedan" to say "saloon car". I do not understand how you cannot comprehend this. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not changing every instance of "sedan" to "saloon car" because that would be chauvinistic of me in an article which has been clearly established for a long time to not use British English. But if another user were to do so then they would only be following the explicit instructions of the tag. If the article does not use British English vocabulary it does not use British English. I do not understand why you would want the article to have an obvious lie at the top of it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I am trying my best to remain WP:CIVIL here, but it is very difficult to do so when all of my carefully constructed arguments are just met with "well, what if you actually just hallucinated your own dialect" or whatever "that's just your interpretation of British English" is supposed to mean. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thirty Years' War

Transylvania was a significant and active participant in the Thirty Years' War, with its military and diplomatic actions directly impacting the course of the conflict. Transylvania's involvement in the Thirty Years' War. Under the leadership of Princes Gábor Bethlen and György I Rákóczi, the Protestant principality of Transylvania repeatedly waged war against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. Its involvement was far from informal, as it was a key part of the anti-Habsburg coalition.Military action,Transylvanian forces fought on behalf of the Protestant cause and allied with other major powers. For instance, Bethlen launched campaigns that threatened the Habsburg capital of Vienna, and Transylvanian soldiers fought alongside Swedish forces in later phases of the war.Diplomatic treaties,Transylvania's participation was formally concluded through treaties that shaped the war's outcome, such as the Peace of Nikolsburg (1621) and the Peace of Linz (1645). These agreements secured religious freedom for Protestants in Hungary and gained territory for Transylvania, which demonstrates its recognized status as a player in the conflict. Representation at Westphalia. Negotiations, not physical presence:While Transylvania was not physically present at the Westphalian peace conference, this was not uncommon. Many smaller states and allies negotiated through the major powers, such as Sweden and France, who were seen as "guarantors of the imperial constitution". Interests addressed indirectly: The final settlements of Westphalia did not directly involve Transylvania but addressed many of the religious and territorial issues that Transylvania's actions had influenced throughout the war. The treaties reaffirmed the right of German princes to choose their religion (which included Calvinism) and confirmed amnesties that affected allies of the Protestant cause. In conclusion, Transylvania was a critical, formal belligerent in the Thirty Years' War. It was not an unrecognized or marginal player, but a military and diplomatic actor whose direct interests were formally addressed in separate treaties and indirectly considered at Westphalia. Just another russian (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't just concern us two. If you think your edit should be reinstated, make your case on Talk:Thirty Years' War, not here. Gawaon (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ok

Paragraph size record?

I thought you might get a kick out of this. Check out the paragraphs over at Fort Dix 38. The "Rebellion/Riot" section has a 349 word paragraph, followed by a 363 word paragraph in the next section, and a closing paragraph of 283 words. Given the advanced age of the primary contributor, I wonder if this is a generational thing. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No idea, could be a matter of personal style. Anyway, I'm sure I have seen (and destroyed) longer paragraphs already 😉. Gawaon (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Leopold II

Hi, re your revert, the point is I was deliberately making BBC roman and not italic, a) for consistent style within the article and b) because BBC News is generally treated as a publisher across WP—see innumerable FAs and GAs, e.g. 2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election, Winston Churchill. I'm going to put it back, but if you revert again I shan't challenge. Cheers. Spicemix (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Spicemix: But that's odd, a publisher could be useful additional information (though rarely needed for websites or newspapers), but what's the point in having a publisher without the actual venue (in this case, BBC is arguably both)? And now we have CNN in italics and BBC without next to each other, where's the sense in that? Gawaon (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Type C

Regarding the Europlug and Type C I wouldn't call them equal, as CEE 7/1, 7/2, 7/17 as well as the Swiss T11 and the Italian S10 are Type C too. As far as I know, Type C is a general term for all classical Victorian age style European plugs and those derived from this old British plug that don't have protective earth. Liebeskind (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No, some people regard those as Type C variants and that's kinda understandable as there wasn't originally a fully precise definition of those types, but it seems that they certainly had the Europlug in mind when the type list was introduced. See this PDF by the US Department of Commerce, which shows the Europlug on the left side (characteristic shape), though with a CEE 7/1 socket on the right. The IEC's World Plugs side, which is the modern reference (including for newer types like O) is even more explicit: "The Type C electrical plug (or Europlug) is a two-wire plug that has two round pins. It fits into any socket that accepts 4.0 – 4.8 mm round contacts on 19 mm centres. They are being replaced by E, F, J, K or N sockets which work perfectly with Type C plugs. Type C plugs are generally limited for use in appliances that require 2.5 amps or less."

So strictly speaking Type C = Europlug, nothing else. Our AC power plugs and sockets#Comparison of standard types accordingly uses that type designation only for the Europlug, not for CEE 7/17 or CEE 7/2. Switzerland uses Type J, Italy L, Brazil and South Africa N, and Thailand O – all of these also come in unearthed two-pin variants which are very close to the Europlug specs and may be used largely interchangeably. But to be precise and follow IEC usage, it seems better not to call them Type C, since they don't exactly follow the Europlug specs and generally allow a higher amperage. Gawaon (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm still not sure. Look for example at this map. Countries like Belarus, North Korea and Kazakhstan are in a very light blue which means Type C. But what they actually use is CEE 7/1 and CEE 7/2. If they used only the Europlug, they'd be restricted to 2.5 A. --Liebeskind (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all it means is that they use sockets into which an Europlug fits. Which is why "Type C" is so widespread since it fits in essentially any socket with round contacts spaced 19 mm apart. Gawaon (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

And for our purposes, I guess all that's relevant is that you can certainly call the Europlug "Type C" without having to apologize for it or hedge your bets. Gawaon (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Aztecs

Please review better edits, don't edit in the article just by your past year's mistake. Difuarti (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Difuarti: I don't get the point of your edits and had to revert you again. Moving the map down is something we could discuss (though I think it makes sense to have it at the top), but removing it altogether it unacceptable. And what's the point in reverting an edit by AnomieBOT?? As for your textual changes, the modified text was already in decent shape before, as far as I can see, so I don't get their purpose. Edits should clearly improve the article, by adding sourced content, by correcting obvious errors and confusing or otherwise unsatisfying wordings etc. In the case of your edits, I'm afraid I don't really see that. Gawaon (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop removing content!, don't make pretext with the bot putting a date of a sustituted citation needed template, don't touch the article again!. Difuarti (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Difuarti, you have absolutely no right to demand that another editor stop editing an article. You don't own the article. Athanelar (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Marvin Harris' Determinism

Hello, I appreciate your support with the Marvin Harris biography. Regarding your undo of my change of "environmental" determinism to "infrastructural" determinism, my Edit Summary did not clearly describe why I was making that change so allow me to elaborate here. Environmental determinism and infrastructural determinism are not the same thing, and not interchangeable. Environmental determinism was a framework based on the idea that the natural environment determines human cultural and social developments, it was developed in the 1800s and faded in the early 1900s, before Harris thus he had no part in its development. Infrastructural determinism is a framework created by Harris based on the idea the demographic and economic realities determine human cultural and social developments. I was trying to remove the stated association of Harris with environmental determinism and replace it with his infrastructural determinism, sorry that was not made clear in my Edit Summary. This change does need to happen though, and while infrastructural determinism does not have its own Wikipedia page it is discussed in the cultural materialism page. Thanks. Sccgeography (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you link to the relevant section in the cultural materialism article when using the term "infrastructural determinism"? That would help to clarify the connection; if the term is just used without link and explanation, it seems rather confusing. Also, specific references to work(s) by Harris where he uses that term would be good. Gawaon (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, since the part in question is in the lead does that create any issues with adding citations? I did change it to where "cultural materialism and infrastructural determinism" as a single entity links to the Cultural Materialism article. Sccgeography (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It may take a bit but if I recall correctly I should be able to find it in his Cultural Materialism book Sccgeography (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Since this in the lead it might actually be better to just say "cultural determinism" and take reference to determinism out altogether, leaving it to the reader to find such details in the cultural materialism article, thoughts? Sccgeography (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You mean "cultural materialism" instead of "cultural determinism", I suppose? Normally, the lead should only be a summary of the body, so if "infrastructural determinism" is only mentioned in the lead that's odd and it might be better to remove the mention altogether – at least until more on it can be found in the article body. Gawaon (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct, I meant cultural materialism. I have already found Harris' use of the term "infrastructural determinism" in his Cultural Materialism book, but the more I think about it the more I agree that the term should just be removed here. The only reason I added it in the first place was as an alternative to the incorrect inclusion of environmental determinism. I will remove the term. Sccgeography (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on the talk page for Gosnell.

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I replied to your comment on the Kermit Gosnell talk page regarding the victim count. I don't know if it notified you or not, so I just thought I'd let you know here as well. DocZach (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries, when I write on a talk page I'll watch it for a while so no separate notification is needed. But thanks anyway. Gawaon (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#appearance of section links

You wrote My worry was just that CapnZapp may accidentally be weakening his own case by leaving the impression that our help page gives unpiped section links a much more favourable treatment than it actually does, which could be interpreted as EDITCON in favour of keeping that favourable treatment. Hence my little comment to correct that impression – that was all, and I think we can consider it settled now.

I should just say that I honestly don't understand what you think I'm doing wrong in a less than optimal fashion, or, after reading WP:EDITCON twice, how that's even applicable. That said, I thank you for taking care of me (even if I don't understand or even deserve it). Unless you think there's more to it I'm prepared to agree "it" (whatever "it" was) is settled now, and hopefully everything has resolved in a manner agreeable to you. Until we collaborate again, CapnZapp (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

All right, sure 😊! (I don't think there's more to it.) Gawaon (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate the friendly remarks on my edit and the clarification. As a new wikipedia editor this is a wonderful opportunity to learn. I hope I get to learn more from you in the future. Deceptecon (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The deletion of the OED’s etymological note on ‘yse’

Hi! You’ve just deleted the note from the OED I added to the Oxford Spelling article, and I think the reasons you did this for are wrong, and I would like to discuss it. First, you say that “the Second edition of the OED is the current one”, but it is not so. The third edition is being published online since 2000 and is not expected to be printed. It exists (and will exist) online as the constantly revised second edition. Second, the ‘analyse/analyze’ in the name of the OED online entry refers not to the possible British spellings, but to the British/American difference. You may see it in the ‘colour/color’, ‘centre/center’ and ‘realize’ pages. Notice how the former two have different spellings in the title, and how the latter has only one (since there is no AmE counterpart to the spelling ‘realize’). As for the single spelling in the title of ‘catalyse’ – it is obviously just some sort of not-yet-revised mistake. The word is just much rarer than the already revised ‘analyse/analyze’ and ‘paralyse/paralyze’, which both have their revision dates (right under the title of the entry) as 2005 and 2010. ‘Catalyse’, on the other hand, has only “first published 1933; not fully revised” note. But most importantly, the etymology of ‘catalyse’ is given by the second edition of the OED (pub. 1989) and the latest edition of the ODE (pub. 2010) as “from ‘catalysis’, on the pattern of ‘analyse’”, so we are not just able to generalize them, we must do it. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

All right, I've deleted the problematic sentence on "analyse" being treated special; will reply more in a minute. Gawaon (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations; unfortunately I don't have access to the paywalled part of the OED, I can only see the stuff that's open (page titles and a bit more). I wasn't aware that American spellings are listed after the slash, but of course that they are means we cannot treat "analyze" as an Oxford spelling, just as we can't treat "color" and "center" as Oxford spellings – obviously they aren't. So the best and wisest course of action is to regard only the first form of the proper Oxford spelling and thus retain our earlier remark about "analyse, catalyse" etc. being such. For anything else we would need an explicit reliable source saying so. Gawaon (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course ‘analyse’ is the only proper Oxford spelling now. My edit with the OED’s note about its etymology never implied anything other. On the contrary, its first sentence stated exactly this:

“The ending -yse (as in analyse, catalyse) is now the only one used in British English.”

Can you please reread its original text and reconsider its deletion? Here it is as follows:

The ending -yse (as in analyse, catalyse) is now the only one used in British English. However, this was not the case until very recently, due to the same etymological reasons.

Either ending is derived from the Greek noun stem λύσις lysis ("release") with the -ize/-ise suffix added to it, and not the original verb form, whose stem is λυ- ly- without the -s/z- segment. Thus, analyze is given as one of the two equally significant "main forms" in the first (published 1884) and second (published 1989) editions of the Oxford English Dictionary, which states on that matter:

On Greek analogies the verb would have been analysize, French analysiser, of which [French] analyser was practically a shortened form, since, though following the analogy of pairs like annexe, annexe-r, it rested chiefly on the fact that by form-association it appeared already to belong to the series of factitive verbs in French -iser, English -ize, = Latin -īzāre, from Greek -ίζ-ειν, to which in sense it belonged. Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. analyze, the spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible.

~2026-10054-77 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

As for the source – you can always download the second edition of the OED from web archive. Here it is (the word ‘analyse’ is given in the Volume 1): https://archive.org/details/OXD1989ENEN/01%20-%20Oxford%20English%20Dictionary%20%281989%29/page/n1/mode/1up ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

As for the possible confusion about the current use: I think you were right when you changed the tense from present to past. Sentence “the 2nd edition of the OED states” can obviously be more confusing about the current Oxford spelling than “the 2nd edition of the OED stated”. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I still think that lengthy quote doesn't belong into the article; it would kinda imply that Oxford spelling (or British English in general) significantly changed in this regard between 1989 and today, which seems doubtful. That they described it as "historically quite defensible" doesn't mean it was their preferred form or an equally valid alternative. But if it wasn't, then of course the point that the -lyse form is the one used in BE (Oxford or not) is still correct and there is no need for such a distracting side comment. Gawaon (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If I may, I would still like to respond to your statement that “it would kinda imply that Oxford spelling (or British English in general) significantly changed in this regard between 1989 and today, which seems doubtful. That they described it as "historically quite defensible" doesn't mean it was their preferred form or an equally valid alternative.”

The fact is that this is exactly what happened. Just 35 years ago, the spelling “analyze” was given as one of two equally significant and correct “main forms” (a term from the OED) in the last printed edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (you can find it as a PDF on the web.archive here). It means that, for at least 10 years since the publication date (1989), that spelling was a rightful part of BrE. And this was not because it was “historically quite defensible”, but because of the exact same etymological reasons that the OED still uses to oppose the much more widespread ‘-ise’ spelling with its ‘-ize’. It’s just that in the last 25 years the spelling “analyze” has completely gone from BrE usage that the OED has finally abandoned it. And this is why I find this OED note so important. Firstly, it completes the etymological part of the article, which constitutes, to my eye, at least half of it: the statements about the “etymological superiority” of ‘-ize’ are present in each and every section. Why leave “yse/yze” section without any etymological context, when there is so much of it in the rest of the article, and when this etymological context is provided by the Oxford Dictionary itself, and not some Etymonline or anything? And secondly, doesn’t it fascinate you how changing, light and airy our spelling actually is, as opposed to all these pompous notions of “etymological superiority” in relation to ‘-ise’ or AmE? (I don’t see this last as a sufficient reason for including this OED note in the article; I just wanted to share my personal amazement and interest with you. I see the former one as such though.)

Also, my wiki nickname is Riviez. It’s nice to meet you, Gawaon.

P.S. Before my edit, there was a completely absurd statement about ‘yse’ spelling coming from one of more then 50 possible forms of the Ancient Greek verb ‘lyo’ (and being, therefore, “the more etymological spelling”). From the linguistic perspective that statement was idiotic, and it had no source whatsoever. Nevertheless, it was there for at least several months, while the note from the OED itself gets deleted in a matter of hours. I just don’t think this is right. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, to sum up my lengthy comment just made above: if there are so many etymological notes in the rest of the article, why leave the “yse/yze” section without any, especially when the OED itself provides it? ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Finally, I just want to acknowledge that the decision is of course up to you. I just wanted to say everything I have on that matter, but I understand that you are much more experienced in the wiki editing, and your experience in this is much more valuable in this debate than all of my arguments, since it’s the good of the readers that matters, not someone’s righteousness. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Riviez, nice meeting you too! I'd suggest you create a named account if you want to continue editing (and I sure hope you do!). That'll facilitate communication and build trust compared to anonymous editing.

As for Oxford spelling, or BE in general, significantly changing, that may be so, but first, the Oxford spelling article chiefly covers the current status, while historical changes rather belong into English orthography § History and American and British English spelling differences § Historical origins – indeed it seems you have already added it to the latter article? Secondly, I'm not convinced of your case. Oxford spelling is not defined by any single work, not even the OED. Our article says it's based on the relevant works of Oxford University Press in general, but of course also of what users make of them. Or these, for example, the United Nations Editorial Manual Online says: "If more than one spelling is given in the dictionary, use the form listed first unless otherwise indicated below." And the WHO Style Guide, likewise cited, recommends "the first spelling of such words given in The concise Oxford dictionary" (emphasis added to both).

So even if the dictionary makers consider two forms as equally valid, users need to pick just one to make sure their texts are consistent – and they tend to pick the first one. Which includes the -lyse forms already per the 1989 edition of the OED – and I suppose per other relevant publications of the OUP, older or newer ones, too.

And New Hart's Rules, cited as another defining work by the OUP for Oxford spelling, similarly states: "In British English, words ending -yse (analyse, paralyse) cannot also be spelled -yze. In US English, however, the -yze ending is usual (analyze, paralyze)." (2nd ed., 2014, p. 50). Now this a fairly new edition and it is of course conceivable that editions published in the 1980s or earlier did allow both variants in British English. If so, we could consider mentioning it. But that would have to be researched first. The OED itself considering two forms as equally valid doesn't matter, since in such cases, by definition and general practice, the first one is the Oxford spelling form. Gawaon (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

So be it! I’m glad to have had this great conversation with you, Gawaon. I feel I’ve learned from it!

As for the new “lyse, not lyze” section, I think you’re right that the OED alone isn’t enough to consider something a part of the (former) Oxford spelling standard. But since the sentence on etymology is still present in the section, maybe we can add the text of this OED note as its source, instead of the current citation that simply directs readers to the 2nd edition (which, to be fair, no one has on their shelf) where this note is to be found? I saw such quotes being hidden under the source link, but I don’t know how to make them that way. Can you provide me with a link to some wiki instruction? ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Glad we could resolve this and thanks for your work on improving the article! If you want to specify an article in the online OED as reference, I found out that we have the {{Cite OED}} template for just this, so you can do it like this: <ref>{{Cite OED|analyse / analyze (v.)|1129505387}}</ref> – that's the source code to use in the source editor; if you use the visual editor, I'm afraid I don't know how to insert the template there, since I never use it. Some of our cite templates have a |quote= parameter, but this one doesn't. So if you want to include a quote, I'd put it in quotation marks after the template (before the closing </ref>). But I'd be careful not to include too much, since longish quotes can be confusing rather than helpful. Gawaon (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I added a (heavily) shortened version of the note to the citation (in quotation marks, before ref) ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You have added the following quote: "On Greek analogies the verb would have been analysize, French analysiser, of which [French] analyser was practically a shortened form. Hence from the first it was commonly written in English analyze, the spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible." However, I have reverted that since I frankly don't see the point. The interesting thing about this suffix is that it's "derived from the Greek noun stem λύσις (lysis, 'release') with the -ize/-ise suffix added to it", as our text already said. That supposedly explains why the OED writes it as -lyse (with -lyze discussed as a "defensible" alternative) rather than -lize, as one would otherwise expect. So if we need a quote (and I'm frankly not sure we do) it would be to establish its origin in λύσις/lysis, not about what the French or Johnson did. Gawaon (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think the purpose of adding that quote lies in two things:

1) To improve our citation. Without this quote it just directs readers to some printed book that nobody possesses (or to the paywalled OED site that no one has access to). But with it readers can immediately see what OED’s statement was the source for the sentence we added to the article.

2) It explains the origin of the ‘lyse’ spelling in Oxford standard, which otherwise prefers the Greek ‘z’ in relation to ‘-ize’: the French verb ‘analyser’, which influenced English. In the same way the first spelling (which is, as you noted before, to be preferred) for the word ‘programme’ is ‘program’ in the 1989 OED (but not in today’s online version). The explanatory note says: “about the beginning of the 19th c., reintroduced from F. ‘programme’, and now more usually so spelt; the earlier ‘program’ was retained by Scott, Carlyle,

Hamilton, and others, and would be preferable, as conforming to the usual English repr. of Gr. ‘-γραμμα’, as in ‘anagram’, ‘cryptogram’, ‘diagram’,

‘telegram’, etc. However, ‘program’ and ‘programme’ have become established as the standard N. Amer. and British spellings respectively.” So the 1989 OED acknowledges that the usual spelling in BrE is the French-influenced ‘programme’, but still lists ‘program’ first. Later, when ‘program’ is finally gone from BrE, the OED surrenders and lists first the French-influenced ‘programme’, in spite of the fact that ‘program’ corresponds better to other English representations of Ancient Greek. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

But does it explain the origin of the -lyse spellings? The part you have quoted actually does nothing of that kind. Presumably it was in the part you have omitted? If so, we could surely consider including a sentence or two explicitly tracing its origin to Greek λύσις/lysis. As for the program/programme issue, that seems besides the point here. I thought we had already resolved that the OED alone does not conclusively define Oxford spelling, making that change between 1989 and online interesting, but not all that meaningful. Gawaon (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, more generally, if we add a reference to a statement that already means that the statement can be traced to that reference. There's absolutely no need to add a quotation just to prove that we don't lie. Anyone who has doubts can find the source and check for themselves, and sometimes people (myself included) do. Hence my scepticism about the need for a quote at all. I think we already explain the Greek origin of that spelling well enough (thanks to one of your edits, if I remember correctly), hence there's no need to add a quotation that would just repeat in the OED's words what we already say. Gawaon (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

To answer your question about ‘lysis’: I think this is what doesn’t belong to the article about Oxford spelling. The fact that there is ‘-ise’ in ‘analyse’ surely belongs to it, but the rest of the etymology probably doesn’t. But we can add a link to the Wiktionary ‘analysis’ page at the point when we mention the Greek stem, if you think it is needed.

As for my second argument for adding the note to the citation, I obviously chose the wrong word and I apologize for it. When I wrote “it explains the origins of the ‘-yse’ spelling in Oxford standard” I meant “it explains how the ‘-yse’ form (made from a root word and ‘-ise’) appeared in Oxford spelling, which in all other ‘-ize/-ise’ cases chooses ‘z’: because of the French verb ‘analyser’, which influenced English”.~2026-10054-77 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right that the "lysis" explanation seems unconvincing, but it's odd that you make this point now since you were the one you had added it! Also I found out that the article does in fact already explain why -lyse was accepted: these words don't originate from Greek suffix -ίζω (‑ízō), hence the OUP sees no particular reason to prefer -ize. Gawaon (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but now I really feel we don’t understand each other. Why did you restored that absurd statement that ‘analyse’ comes from one of more than 50 possible stems of an Ancient Greek verb? This statement is just idiotic from the linguistic perspective, and it has no source at all, let alone “reliable”. Let us make sure we’re on the same page: ‘Analysis’ (and other such words) is clearly from Greek ‘lysis’, which is from ‘lyo’ + ‘sis’. This etymology can be found everywhere, including the OED. But ‘analyse’ and ‘analyze’, according to the etymological note from the OED, are formed by haplology from ‘analysis’ + ‘-ize/-ise’, hence from the first it was written in each and every one British dictionary as ‘analyze’, without any ‘s’ option listed whatsoever. This ‘s’ option appeared later, along with all other French influenced ‘-ise’ spellings (‘realise’, ‘organise’, etc.).

Once again, here’s the etymological note from a “reliable source” (the OED):

“On Greek analogies the verb would have been analysize, French analysiser, of which [French] analyser was practically a shortened form, since, though following the analogy of pairs like annexe, annexe-r, it rested chiefly on the fact that by form-association it appeared already to belong to the series of factitive verbs in French -iser, English -ize, = Latin -īzāre, from Greek -ίζ-ειν, to which in sense it belonged. Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. analyze, the spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible.”

Why do you replace the Oxford’s statement that ‘analyze/analyse’ is a shortened form of ‘analysize/analysise’, influenced by the French verb ‘analyser’ (which itself is a shortened form of ‘analysiser’, with ‘-iser’ being a French version of L. ‘-izare’, Eng. ‘-ize/-ise’) with that nonsense about English speakers choosing from more than 50 different forms of the Greek verb ‘lyo’? Where is a source for that? ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The main and well sourced point is that the OED did not choose the -ize spelling for words not actually derived from -ízō, and clearly they count the -lyse words among them. I suppose exactly because, as said in the text you cite, analysiser was shortened to analyser, with the -is- dropped – hence no need to adopt it as -iz- (that would otherwise have led to the unused English form *analysize). But with the -is/iz- dropped, the root still ended in -lys-, hence they adapted that spelling as it was, without arbitrarily changing that s (not from -ízō) to z. They call the other alternative "defensible" but clearly it's not the one they actually chose.

As for the -lyse words all deriving from λύω, that was already in the article before you deleted it. I know of no explicit source for it, but I checked it for the typical examples. Wiktionary traces analyse to ἀναλύω, and that one to ἀνα- (ana-, “thoroughly”) + λύω (lúō, “loosen”); it traces paralyze to παραλύω, from παρα- (para-, “from”) + λύω (lúō, “loosen; destroy”). It also checked it for catalyse and (via a French dictionary) it's from λύω too. I haven't check further examples but I strongly suspect they'll work out too – but should you know of a counterexample, let me know. Gawaon (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the ‘programme’ issue: I was pointing out the following pattern: ‘program’ corresponds better to other Greek ‘-gram’ words, but is a less popular spelling than the French-influenced ‘programme’; the OED defends ‘program’ but surrenders to ‘programme’. ‘Analyze’ corresponds better to other Greek ‘-ize’ words, but is a less popular spelling than the French-influenced ’analyse’; the OED defends ‘analyze’ but surrenders to ‘analyse’. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Your "surrender to French influence" hypothesis seems to be original research (something we are not allowed to do here), since while the OED mentions the French forms, it doesn't say that the -lyse spelling was accepted because of the French spelling. The hypothesis is also very unconvincing, since French has also organiser, réaliser etc. So if the OUP had generally surrendered to French influence, Oxford spelling would not even exist, since the OUP would have accepted the -ise forms just as the other British dictionaries did. More plausibly, it's actually due to the original Greek basis of the word, as our article already says – but I'll edit it further to make this clearer, since the -lyse explanation is currently a bit wanting or misleading. Gawaon (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

They surrendered to ‘analyse’ and to ‘programme’ only when ‘analyze’ and ‘program’ (which they defended in their etymological notes as “corresponding better to other English representations of Greek”) had completely fallen out of British use. The OED can’t list the spellings which nobody actually uses, because the OED is a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist dictionary. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a very doubtful speculation to me, not covered by anything written in the OED or elsewhere. Gawaon (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

As for why all that seems to me relevant: right now we have an article that says “1) Oxford spelling prefers etymological ’-ize’ to ‘-ise’. 2) It spells ‘analyse’, which is from ‘analysis’ + ‘-ise’, with an ‘s’.” And now there isn’t even a hint of why it is so illogical. But I think we can’t just add to the article a sentence like: “this is all because of the French influence, you know,” because there is no source for such statement. Language development is too complex to be consistently and easily explained by etymology or some other linguistic field alone. But what we can do is to silently add this OED note that mentions ‘-ize/-ise’ suffix and the French influence simultaneously, explaining both the ‘-ize/-ise’ etymology (which alone makes the spelling of ‘analyse’ and ‘paralyse’ relevant to the article on Oxford spelling) and the “illogical” choice of the ‘s’ spelling in the case of ‘lyse’ verbs. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not illogical and it's not entirely due to French influence. Don't underestimate the OUP, these people know what they are doing! But I'll edit the article a bit more to make the origin of their choices clearer. Gawaon (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, these people know what they are doing: a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist dictionary. This is why they refused from defended by them as “corresponding better to other English representations of Greek” ‘analyze’ and ‘program’ as soon as they had fallen out of British use. Why have they fallen out? No one will ever know and no one will write a reliable source on it. This is why I don’t propose to include this in the article. But apparently because ‘analyze’ doesn’t look so obviously coming from the Greek ‘-izo’ to ordinary British people who don’t know about haplology. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Well I would again say their main point is that in the actually used form the -izo has become invisible and is no longer written (otherwise it would be *analysize). Gawaon (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I have now restored your sentence on the origin of that specific ending, but without the quote, which I think is neither needed nor particularly helpful. Gawaon (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

(For the sake of convenience I will reply to your latest comments here, since it is the visual “bottom” of our dialogue.) ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Gawaon, please, let us return to the common ground.

1) I have added a sentence about ‘analyse/analyze’ coming from Greek ‘lyo’ myself. I know that as well as you do. Let us agree on that once and for all. But the restored statement that the ‘s’ spelling of the English verb comes from one particular ‘s’-stem (when there are more than 50 stems without any ‘s’ in them!) of the Ancient Greek verb is just ridiculously absurd and has no source whatsoever. Why then have you restored it so eagerly?

2) The French verb ‘analysiser’ cannot be a contraction without ‘-iser’(=‘-ize’), because a French equivalent to ‘analysis’ is ‘analyse’ (it’s a noun pronounced “analeez”). If there is no remnant of ‘-iser’(=‘-ize’) in the French verb ‘analyser’, then ‘analyser’ is simply ‘analyse’(n.) + ‘-r’, just as French ‘annexer’(v.) is simply ‘annexe’(n.) + ‘-r’ (the pair mentioned in the OED note). But it is not, or the OED wouldn’t even mention the French ‘-iser’, English ‘-ize’, Latin ‘-izare’, Greek ‘-izein’ when explaining the French verb ‘analyser’ and the English verb ‘analyse’. Please see that I don’t take all this from some “original research”. Every word above is taken from the OED’s note. Here is the note again, with my relevant to what was said above emphases (caps just seemed the most convenient option, but still excuse me for yelling at you):

On Greek analogies the verb would have been analysIZE, French analysISER, of which [French] analySER was practically a shortened form, since, though following the analogy of pairs like annexe, annexe-r, it rested chiefly on the fact that by form-association it appeared already TO BELONG to the series of factitive verbs in French -iser, English -ize, = Latin -īzāre, from Greek -ίζ-ειν, to which in sense it belonged. HENCE from the first it was commonly written in Eng. analyZE, the spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible.

So the OED states that French ‘-iser’ = English ‘-ize’, and that French ‘analyser’ is from ‘-iser’, hence from the first it was written in English ‘analyze’. ‘iSER’ = ‘iZE’, ‘analySER’ = ‘analyZE’. This verb was spelled that way in British English not only in Johnson’s Dictionary, but in each and every British dictionary for more than a hundred years with no ‘s’ alternative at all (just info, not something I propose to include in the article). It wasn’t spelled that way because it was “historically defensible”, but because “it belonged to the series of factitive verbs in Eng. ‘-ize’, F. ‘-iser’, L. ‘-izare’, Gr. ‘-izein’”. It is a direct quote from the OED, not my “original research”.

3) The OED is not a prescriptivist, but a descriptivist dictionary. It means that they don’t freely choose the spellings they think are best and prescribe them to English speakers. They follow actual usage. So your argument that “the OED did not choose the -ize spelling for words not actually derived from -ízō, and clearly they count the -lyse words among them” is clearly wrong. If there is more than one spelling in actual use, the OED can list one first and the other second based on etymological correctness. But if in actual use there is only one spelling (and nowadays nobody spells it ‘analyze’ in BrE, just as in Johnson’s time nobody spelled it ‘analyse’), then the OED simply lists that spelling. They have no choice, since they cannot prescribe usage; they can only describe it. And notice how actual usage doesn’t follow the dictionaries. Even in journalism nobody follows Oxford spelling today. The Oxford University itself doesn’t use it since 2016 (you can read about it in our favourite wiki article). In exactly the same way ‘analyze’ just fell out of use in BrE despite all the British lexicographers’ efforts and despite all their dictionaries that listed it as the first and only spelling. There is no etymological reason for it like some “Ancient Greek aorist stem”. It just fell out of use and so the OED could only defend it in their note as they did with ‘program’. But they weren’t able to make it their “etymologically chosen” spelling, because it was not for them to decide. ~2026-10054-77 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the reference to λύσις/lysis, since it's indeed just λύω (lúō) + -σις (-sis), which fits the etymology of these words, hence no need to mention the (indeed unsourced) aorist stem. More to come. Gawaon (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Other than Johnson from 1755, you'd have to show me a British dictionary which listed analyze "as the first and only spelling". I'm not aware of any, are you? I also read "historically quite defensible" as "not obviously wrong" – you can defend it, but that doesn't mean it's your favourite choice. You seem to read it as "best possible choice". Also you somehow disregard the fact that "On Greek analogies the verb would have been analysIZE, French analysISER" is something purely hypothetical ("would"), not the actual etymology of the word. But be that as it may, to avoid repetition I suggest we call it a day. Without them explicitly explaining it, we simply cannot know why they chose to put the form analyse first (at least in 1989 and today, I don't know about the first edition) – all we know it that they did, and that's what's ultimately matters here. Gawaon (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Gator bait article

Excellent work expanding and enriching. TY. jengod (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks 😊. Gawaon (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

And thanks a lot for your comprehensive earlier work on the article! Gawaon (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)