Talk:Nominality

message: Nominal looks like it derives from the Greek word Nomos=Law [unsigned]
:A good guess, but it is from Latin nōmen, "name". (However, I would not be surprised if the Indo-European roots for "name" and "law" had some extremely distant primordial connection, so the apparent cognation that you detected may not be completely false!) — Lumbercutter 15:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: All together too many pages link here, a disambiguation page. All these links should be systematically redirected to their intended pages as I have already done in the case of board foot and Japanese adjectives. This will be a huge undertaking larger than belt. Peter Horn 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pages link here 

message: From an earlier iteration of the lede: 
: In human cognition, there are at least two concepts that relate to a difference between what something is in name and what it is in reality: (1) whether we even perceive that the difference exists; and (2) if so, whether we judge that the difference matters to us. A judgment in one case that the difference is very important and another judgment in another case that the difference is very unimportant can both relate to the concept of "in name only": we emphasize that the difference exists, in order to implicitly emphasize either its importance or unimportance. In the latter case (unimportance), the word nominal can approach synonymity with "small" or "unimportant", such as in the phrase paying a nominal fee. The fee is a monetary expense in name only; in reality, the amount does not matter very much. In the former case (importance), the word nominal can emphasize the irony of false appearances or assumptions, such as when a certain police department is especially corrupt—because we archetypically equate police to "the good guys", we may emphasize the badness of this department by saying that they are nominally the face of law and order in their community: that is, in name only.
See User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings#A differentiation should be made between "mere" disambig pages and "superset unification" pages. — ¾-10 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently believe that whatever argument appears on your talk page reveals something fundamental that your colleagues have found no need for the last ten years. I'm not saying you're wrong, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you should seek a consensus that you've provided it at WP:DAB, not on your talk page nor even on this talk page.     I agree that what you are trying to create is not a Dab page, which is why i am proposing it for deletion: we need Dab pages, but we don't need WP:OR.--Jerzy•t 07:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of "etymological encyclopedia" boldfaced in — ¾-10' talk page is pretty much covered by wiktionary. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi guys. First off, I apologize for the snarkiness in the way I wrote that pondering at User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings#A differentiation should be made between "mere" disambig pages and "superset unification" pages. I'm not an asshole—I just came across that way that day because I had seen some good content deleted in various places over time, and I was flustered about it, and I rattled off that thought-train in stream-of-consciousness form. I don't bear ill will toward anyone for agreeing with or implementing the current consensus; I realize that that's normal and appropriate. Since that time (2010-09) I've decided that it's pointless for me to worry about whether anyone else agrees with my take on the topic. So in answer to Jerzy's insight about location of discussion ('not on your talk page nor even on this talk page'), you're totally right that if I were to pursue persuading people about it and influencing WP policy, I would have to "take it to the streets" at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. But I'm content to just leave some discussion on these other pages (here, and my user subpage) and leave it at that. It's kind of just "an idea I wish people would think about", and passersby here can have an opportunity, but it doesn't rise to the threshold of my devoting a lot of metapedian effort to evangelizing it. If my ideas ever take root, it'll be nice; if not, I won't worry about it. As for Loew's observation about "etymological encyclopedia" vs/cf Wiktionary—you're definitely in the ballpark; there's just two corollaries I would add. One is that yes, you're right that Wiktionary provides all or most of the same information to the interested reader; but it does so in a pedagogical presentation that most people ignore. In other words, people could learn these insights from reading a dictionary carefully enough; but very few ever actually do. My vision of the "superset unification pages" or the  "etymological encyclopedia" are pedagogical formats that would teach people these insights "without their even knowing what the right question was or how they should have asked it". It sounds stupid, but it's the same kind of thinking as with expert systems—educating people in ways where "it all comes to them, rather than their having to come to it." I lack time to explain myself better here right now, but probably I've spit it out well enough to give an inkling. Anyway, long story short, the second corollary I was going to add is that in the past when I added some content to Wiktionary that was sort of like this, it got gutted by editors who, I would say, IIRC, felt it was basically a square peg that needed to be chucked out of Wiktionary's round hole. For a while I had given up even contributing to Wiktionary because it seemed to be owned by deletionists. But I couldn't stay away, so it all worked out in the end. Please accept my apologies for my snarky 2010-09 mentions of pedants (which doesn't apply to you guys), and know that I am content to let it all lie and to live with the consensus of WP:DAB even though I think it lacks certain aspects. Maybe someday I'll find time and desire to bring my pedagogical ideas there for peer review. In the meantime, happy editing. Regards, — ¾-10 02:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Good content sacrificed to [conventional] disambig cleanup (i.e., function sacrificed to form)

message: It is pity to delete it completely. I suggest to move it to wiktionary. How may this be formally requested? Loew Galitz (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure i've ever been anything but the [self-perceived!] victim of the process; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki, it says here.--Jerzy•t 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to wiktionary