User talk:Gawaon

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: ^[1]

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)

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)

Hi. You've reverted my edit claiming insufficient sources twice (including after I pointed to an external wiki). I don't really understand your reasons. I have a couple of points to make:

• We're talking about a visual cultural allusion in a video game. What do you want here as "evidence"? A screenshot from the game?
• You're making subtle alterations to the article's form, leaving non-advice about possible improvements, that essentially say "guess what I have in mind". If that was meant to be helpful, it was not.
• Do you want to discourage people from making small edits based on what they noticed? Wasn't all this supposed to be based on good will and assuming the good will of others?
• Based on our short exchange and on a glimpse of your interactions with others, I sense a passive-aggressive attitude on your part, trying to micromanage the areas of Wikipedia, that you feel responsible for.

I don't know what your deal is with all this. I'm leaving you with the question of whether this is the kind of community you're trying to build. Or do I completely misunderstand your motives, in which case I'd be curious to know what they are. Wsgac (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I do indeed hope that it's not just me; we should all do our part to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a collection of random trivia, and that's frankly not an easy task. And I'm far from the strictest editor in that regard; see MOS:POPCULT for what's the official line. Personally I tend to be way more permissive, but the minimum for adding a game or similar pop culture reference to an article is that it's mentioned as relevant in some reliable publication, say in a review of the game in an independent magazine. I don't doubt that it's true, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is big, but it's still not big enough to accept every true fact (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).

So what's needed is that people considered it important enough to explicitly write about it in some independent medium. The wiki you linked is not enough, since we don't accept wikis as reliable sources (yes, that includes Wikipedia itself). Moreover, I suppose it tries to cover more or less every detail of the game, while to establish that something is sufficiently notable to include, we need the very opposite: a source that's sufficiently selective to mention just some particularly relevant elements, and yet includes the beanstalk connection among them. If you have that (and it's reliable), we're good to go. Gawaon (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Boswell, John. *The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance*. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988, p. 329: “Pater famis necessitate confectus, potest filium vendere; vel pignorare si eum habet in potestate; mater vero non potest. Item si pater est in castro obsessus potest ob dictam necessitatem filium comedere.”; “E aun ay otra razon por que el padre podria esto fazer: ca segund el fuero leal de Espafia, seyendo el padre cercado en algun Castillo que touiesse de Senor, si fuesse tan cuytado de fambre que non ouiesse al que comer, puede comer al fijo, sin mala estanca, ante que diesse el Castillo sin mandado de su Senor. Onde, si esto puede fazer por el Senior, guisada cosa es, que lo puede fazer por si mismo”.

There were a few entries where I might have forgotten to include secondary literature the primary sources were crossrefernced from when I blockquoted them years ago. Thanks for removing those and I'll try fix them when I got time, but it seems quite uncivil to mass deleting other entries without verifying them. ~2026-22156-54 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The primary sources were simply wrong in most of the cases I checked. But thanks for the secondary reference to the Siete Partidas case; it's somewhat hidden in the primary text, but with that additional reference it seems acceptable. Gawaon (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)