Move to Wiktionary?
editThe word "anatopism" doubtless qualifies for inclusion in Wiktionary. Given, however, that its twin, "anachronism," has an article of its own in Wikipedia, does it not stand to reason that so should "anatopism"? logologist|Talk 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
2007-01-31 Automated pywikipediabot message
edit | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL @ Milkgiver's vandalism. 71.179.109.246 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"Anachorism"
editUser:DeeJaye6 has introduced the following sentence into the lead:
"Anatopism is not to be confused with an 'anachorism', which is defined as (n.) - foreign to a certain locality; geographically impossible (Collins English Dictionary)."
The sentence is presumably meant to refer to "anachronism" but actually uses a nonexistent word, "anachorism".
The sentence is awkwardly written.
It is also superfluous, since it duplicates what was already in the lead.
The sentence should be deleted.
Nihil novi (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Nihil, please use your Internet connection to look up the word "anachorism," which is a word that is sometimes confused with an anatopism. The word DOES exist, and the sentence (as originally written) makes perfect sense as a result. DeeJaye6 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)