User talk:Dforest

Welcome

Hello Dforest, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Anser 6 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Aluminium & Google

Hi - I've copied the relevant section from Google test:

Idiosyncratic usage. The English language often has multiple terms for a single concept, particularly given regional dialects. A series of searches for different forms of a name reveals some approximation of their relative popularity. For a quick comparison of relative usage try googlefight, e.g. comparing deoxyribose nucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid. Note that there are cases where this googletest can be overruled, such as when an international standard has been set, as in the case of aluminium.

Please note the last sentence. Also note that I'm a chemistry teacher in the US and use and prefer aluminum, but this is an international encyclopedia and IUPAC rules here in chemical articles. Thanks, Vsmith 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your argument, but I believe that passage refers primarily to Wikipedia naming conventions. I do not contest that the article should remain at "aluminium". I just think it is relevant to show popular usage as well, at least in a footnote. Yes, an international standard has been set--by scientists, not by linguists. I don't think it is fair for scientists to claim complete ownership over chemical articles. The article name is one thing, but popular usage is worthy of a footnote, is it not? In my opinion, a good reference work shows popular usage as well as what is considered the "standard". If anything, I think the mention of the google test above makes it more relevant to footnote in the article. Also note that I am an American EFL teacher teaching high school abroad. I find it contentious when people use International English as a euphemism for Commonwealth English. Both British and American-derived English are learned and spoken in various countries. Dforest 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling section notes the usage at the top and then the spelling history. A Google search simply shows that the web is largely written by Americans, that's why it is rather irrelevant as well as redundant in the section. Vsmith 04:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is primarily a web-based reference, it is indeed relevant if the majority of web users prefer one form over the other. I am not the only one who thinks it is relevant, it's been contested before and that should be mentioned. If it's worthy of note at the top of the Google test page, it's worthy of a footnote in the article. Please realize I am not contesting the correctness of "aluminium", I agree that it is the consensus standard here. But to contrast that with a measure of common usage is a worthwhile point. Dforest 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be consistent in the use of spelling. The title of the article uses the British English spelling and so British English should be used throughout the article. Please do not revert this again. BTW your comments about the Googletest are not useful or helpful. Google exists in the rarified world of the American dominated Internet. This is an international encyclopaedia. In the words of Jimbo Wales. The Wikipedia is not an Internet encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet. In the future, editions of the encyclopaedia will be distributed to the poor in places where cheap acces to the Internet is not possible. Good day. Jooler 10:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daikon

Hi. Thanks for your edits on Daikon. I was redirecting Raphanus Sativus to Daikon, but then noticed that Raphanus sativus (lowercase s) redirects to Radish. Are Radish and Daikon the same plants, or is one of them taxed incorrectly? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 12:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, daikon is a type of radish. They are the same genus and species. Interesting that the Daikon article is longer than Radish, isn't it? BTW, I corrected the capitalization of Raphanus Sativus. Thanks. Dforest 15:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]