![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There's no such thing in accepted English as "second aunt", etc. These terms may be translations of Spanish terms. AFAICT, they're some Wiki editor's personal invention. Googling the terms gets almost nothing.
Do not restore the deletions without some reference or citation. Septimus.stevens ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the cousin chart and canon law chart are separate sections with separate explanations? They're exactly the same but one is rotated 45°. Shadebug ( talk) 15:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone left out one thing that if one's grandparent is another's grantparent, then they could be siblings apart from first cousins? Siblings of course share same grandparents Super Wang 03:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The cells below the diagonal in the cousin chart simply reduplicate the information above. Wouldn't it be better to have uncle/aunt, granduncle/grandaunt &c above (say); and nephew/niece, grandnephew/grandniece below? This would require a small adjustment in the labelling of the chart.
It should be noted that many English speakers say "great-uncle/aunt" rather than "granduncle/grandaunt". Similarly "great-nephew/niece". Koro Neil ( talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I consolidated all the Basic definitions to use the same chart. As the charts uses a lot of characters a lot of characters where removed, but no content has been removed. In fact content has been added to make the information provided by each definition consistent. The names where changed to keep it consistent, other than that no changes where made. Please stop reverting. Lazy editors stop progress. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA ( talk) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I added the table to consolidate the text, but the format of the table does not allow easy viewing for cell phones or any other browser with a small screen os i changed it into a bulleted list. Please help make it look prettier. THe term ordinal is unnecessarily complicated. The distinction was not made between earliest common ancestor and ancestor, the names were wrong in the display of some relationships. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA ( talk) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nibbling is not a word that has entered the vernacular of the English language. It is technically jargon, and Wikipedia's policies about jargon are pretty clear. Jargon needs to be defined before it is used, and used as little as possible in explaining a concept. The concept is clear without additional jargon such as nibbiling. Although thrice one way of saying three times none of the references I have found about removals use the term thrice. Therefore it is most likely an incorrect usage. Please provide a citation that indicates that the usage of thrice is correct and the usage of three times is incorrect for the purpose of cousins. From the Wikipedia Manual of Style
Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using{{ Technical}}
or{{ Technical-statement}}
for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. When the notions named by jargon are too complex to explain concisely in a few parenthetical words, write one level down. For example, consider adding a brief background section with{{ main}}
tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; this approach is practical only when the prerequisite concepts are central to the exposition of the article's main topic and when such prerequisites are not too numerous. Short articles like stubs generally do not have such sections.
2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA ( talk) 16:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(re-indenting) All that search does is prove the ambiguity of the phrase "three times".
As I said, "thrice", in the case of "thrice-removed", is a purely situational/contextual usage. Google searches like that are generally only used to provide weight to what a proper noun should be called, or how much an adjective is used in reliable sources to describe a noun (usually a person, event, or action). Even then, it says little to nothing, especially not without a dozen or so specialised search strings, where the usage in the sources of each relevant result are weighted. At the end of the day, you still need consensus. If you really truly wish, I can probably pull up numerous instances of it being used, especially in the case of demonstrating a threefold degree, or threefold relation. Further, I can do the same for it being used specifically in the case of kinship.
But the onus wouldn't be on me to prove such as thing, as it's simply correct phrasing when demonstrating a three-fold degree of relativity, i.e. "cousin, thrice-removed". I've read enough papers having to do with kinship to know it's correct if the person is speaking at an en-5 level. It's not jargon like "nibbling". It's simply proper collegiate/professional English.
Maybe it's just a difference in experience, having seen and heard it several times throughout my university career and in my social circles. Like I said, I'd prefer not to make this to big of an issue. It's rather silly; I just take umbrage with Wikipedia being written below a semi-professional level of English, and being less precise than it could be. Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 21:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
There are now two charts in the basic definitions section. They both show the same thing. Does anyone have a preference for which one should be kept, or can anyone find a reasonable excuse to keep both? Bobshmit ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok so the child of my parent's half sibling is my half cousin and we would share 1 grandparent. The child of one of my parent's full siblings is my cousin and we would share 2 grandparents. The child of my parent's half sibling with the half sibling of my other parent would be my double half cousin and we would also share 2 grandparents. The child of my biological uncle with my biological aunt on the other side of my family would be my double cousin and we would share 4 grandparents. So if the full sibling of one of my parents had a child with the half sibling of my other parent what I would call this cousin that I share 3 grandparents with? -- Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.18.123 ( talk) 06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Another website showed a couple more possible but unlikely types of first cousins.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There's no such thing in accepted English as "second aunt", etc. These terms may be translations of Spanish terms. AFAICT, they're some Wiki editor's personal invention. Googling the terms gets almost nothing.
Do not restore the deletions without some reference or citation. Septimus.stevens ( talk) 20:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the cousin chart and canon law chart are separate sections with separate explanations? They're exactly the same but one is rotated 45°. Shadebug ( talk) 15:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Has anyone left out one thing that if one's grandparent is another's grantparent, then they could be siblings apart from first cousins? Siblings of course share same grandparents Super Wang 03:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The cells below the diagonal in the cousin chart simply reduplicate the information above. Wouldn't it be better to have uncle/aunt, granduncle/grandaunt &c above (say); and nephew/niece, grandnephew/grandniece below? This would require a small adjustment in the labelling of the chart.
It should be noted that many English speakers say "great-uncle/aunt" rather than "granduncle/grandaunt". Similarly "great-nephew/niece". Koro Neil ( talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I consolidated all the Basic definitions to use the same chart. As the charts uses a lot of characters a lot of characters where removed, but no content has been removed. In fact content has been added to make the information provided by each definition consistent. The names where changed to keep it consistent, other than that no changes where made. Please stop reverting. Lazy editors stop progress. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA ( talk) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I added the table to consolidate the text, but the format of the table does not allow easy viewing for cell phones or any other browser with a small screen os i changed it into a bulleted list. Please help make it look prettier. THe term ordinal is unnecessarily complicated. The distinction was not made between earliest common ancestor and ancestor, the names were wrong in the display of some relationships. 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA ( talk) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nibbling is not a word that has entered the vernacular of the English language. It is technically jargon, and Wikipedia's policies about jargon are pretty clear. Jargon needs to be defined before it is used, and used as little as possible in explaining a concept. The concept is clear without additional jargon such as nibbiling. Although thrice one way of saying three times none of the references I have found about removals use the term thrice. Therefore it is most likely an incorrect usage. Please provide a citation that indicates that the usage of thrice is correct and the usage of three times is incorrect for the purpose of cousins. From the Wikipedia Manual of Style
Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using{{ Technical}}
or{{ Technical-statement}}
for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. When the notions named by jargon are too complex to explain concisely in a few parenthetical words, write one level down. For example, consider adding a brief background section with{{ main}}
tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; this approach is practical only when the prerequisite concepts are central to the exposition of the article's main topic and when such prerequisites are not too numerous. Short articles like stubs generally do not have such sections.
2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA ( talk) 16:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(re-indenting) All that search does is prove the ambiguity of the phrase "three times".
As I said, "thrice", in the case of "thrice-removed", is a purely situational/contextual usage. Google searches like that are generally only used to provide weight to what a proper noun should be called, or how much an adjective is used in reliable sources to describe a noun (usually a person, event, or action). Even then, it says little to nothing, especially not without a dozen or so specialised search strings, where the usage in the sources of each relevant result are weighted. At the end of the day, you still need consensus. If you really truly wish, I can probably pull up numerous instances of it being used, especially in the case of demonstrating a threefold degree, or threefold relation. Further, I can do the same for it being used specifically in the case of kinship.
But the onus wouldn't be on me to prove such as thing, as it's simply correct phrasing when demonstrating a three-fold degree of relativity, i.e. "cousin, thrice-removed". I've read enough papers having to do with kinship to know it's correct if the person is speaking at an en-5 level. It's not jargon like "nibbling". It's simply proper collegiate/professional English.
Maybe it's just a difference in experience, having seen and heard it several times throughout my university career and in my social circles. Like I said, I'd prefer not to make this to big of an issue. It's rather silly; I just take umbrage with Wikipedia being written below a semi-professional level of English, and being less precise than it could be. Quinto Simmaco ( talk) 21:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
There are now two charts in the basic definitions section. They both show the same thing. Does anyone have a preference for which one should be kept, or can anyone find a reasonable excuse to keep both? Bobshmit ( talk) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok so the child of my parent's half sibling is my half cousin and we would share 1 grandparent. The child of one of my parent's full siblings is my cousin and we would share 2 grandparents. The child of my parent's half sibling with the half sibling of my other parent would be my double half cousin and we would also share 2 grandparents. The child of my biological uncle with my biological aunt on the other side of my family would be my double cousin and we would share 4 grandparents. So if the full sibling of one of my parents had a child with the half sibling of my other parent what I would call this cousin that I share 3 grandparents with? -- Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.18.123 ( talk) 06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Another website showed a couple more possible but unlikely types of first cousins.