Talk:Conflation

Suggestions

• I would like to suggest incorporating a link to, or a small paragraph on, stemming/term conflation in natural language processing. Josh Froelich 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I thought the definition and examples were good, clean enough as the truth can be. Except i thought that a literal translation of the first statement by the Mexican comic would be a good idea; it was not literally translated. Sinyaok (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) My Spanish is not great, but I believe the translation for

"Mas vale pájaro en mano que dios lo ayudará...no, no...Dios ayuda al que vuela como pájaro...no... bueno, la idea es esa."

is more along the lines of:

"Better a bird in the hand then god to help you... no, no, God will help those who fly like a parrot, no.. well that's the idea."

Really quite humorous, and appreciated by those like me, who while wishing wish to improve their understanding of "conflation", like their learning with a little sauce.

I cleaned up grammar and changed the "Identies" section to "Examples" and moved it to the bottom. It talked about more than just identities that are conflated and offered no new information, so I thought it would be better at the end of the page. 72.54.238.166 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

G8

The article starts with a lengthy paragraph about the G8 group of nations in order to give an example of conflation. The paragraph is impenetrably vague, poorly-written, and I cannot think of a way to improve it without ripping it out and leaving a blank space; surely a better example would be e.g. Europe and the European Union, socialism and communism, fundamentalist Christians with right-wingers, or for that matter all manner of cargo cult behavior. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Pomeroy -- I'm the editor who inserted that inadequately-written paragraph about the Group of Eight. For all its flaws, my draft text was at least fully sourced with linked in-line citations; but I do agree that the placement was too prominent in this context.

As you know imagine, following the 34th G8 Summit in Japan this year, there has been an evolving debate in the related wiki-pages about conflation of G6 and G7 and G8 and whatever seems likely to develop by the time of next summer's planned summit in Italy.

In that context, the well-intentioned effort to implicate conflation as a term of debate was defensible and plausibly constructive. Although my contribution to this article may need re-thinking, I do assert that something about the topic of "Conflation and the G8" will be seen as arguably encompassed within the ambit of future versions of the text.

As you can see, I've re-positioned the paragraphs of the article. My edits have involved very little modification of the pre-existing text, focusing instead on the arc of paragraph development. Please feel free to re-modulate the scope or framework of this article in any way you see fit. Hopefully, the small steps I have taken will suggest a even better strategy? --Tenmei (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The images from Euler diagram and Venn diagram can be easily replaced from amongst a range of alternatives -- perhaps something else would be better for the unique purposes of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Euler and Venn diagrams

An Euler diagram does not need to show all possible intersections.

A Venn diagram shows all possible intersections.

This edit was clearly explained, but it was unconvincing:

• diff 23:16, 9 July 2010 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (12,441 bytes) (The Venn and Euler diagrams have no straightforward or obvious connection to this article)

I reverted precisely because the connection seems both straightforward and obvious to me. Perhaps this thread is needed in order to help clarify the unexpected disjunction.

I anticipated that some other diagram might be better, but I was unprepared for the rationale which rejects the diagrams entirely. This is puzzling; and I don't know how to respond in a constructive manner. --Tenmei (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The diagrams are not referenced anywhere in the article, do not relate to any examples used in the article, and do not even have a caption that explains their relation to the topic at hand. Given all of that, I found them sorely out of place (and, indeed, navigated to this talk page with the explicit intention of looking into this matter). I am of the opinion they ought to be either integrated into the text of the article in any way, or eliminated from it. 132.162.73.208 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Diagrams removed from the article pending an arguable response to these reasonable critical comments. --Tenmei (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

couple things.

1. the example under congruent conflations header is one about idiom conflation again. should that be under the logical conflation header? ya know what I mean?

2. how many times can we say 'illustrative example'? are some examples [whether pertaining to conflation or anything else] not illustrative, or less illustrative?

T-303 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor Grammatical Corrections

I made some minor grammatical corrections on the piece where the language was confusing. Generally I just deleted an unneeded preposition or repeated word. Hopefully it is more easily read now? Here is one example of a change. Changed to read: "The "manner" of the scene, described by further context, would explain the true meaning of the sentence." From: "The "manner" of the scene, with further context, would further explain the true meaning of the sentence." The repeated use of the word "further" is unnecessary and confuses the text. joseph_setorius☊ ☼ 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conflation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226165606/http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php to http://www.deljpn.ec.europa.eu/union/showpage_en_union.external.g8.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conflation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420195906/http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y98/dec98/17e2.htm to http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y98/dec98/17e2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)