Talk:biannual
The "Note" section is in the wrong place with the wrong heading level I think. — Hippietrail 10:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Removed "biennual" as an antonym of "biannial". Simply speaking, it doesn't make sense for them to be antonyms. That aside, no other dictionary (Webster, Encarta, Cambridge, et al) indicates them as antonyms, so I don't think that they are. 124.106.233.81
Why are we recording rare mis-use of the word?
I have not checked all 1.5 million Google hits, but all of the first 100 are for the correct usage.
We could find quotes for incorrect usage of most words, but surely Wikipedia is not the place to record rare mis-use of words!
Dbfirs 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dictionary.com (under their "bi-" entry) explain that in the publishing world, bi-weekly always means fortnightly, and bi-monthly always means every two months. However, in the same publishing world, bi-annually almost always means twice a year. It is easy to see where the confusion arose with the universally recognised biennial. Dbfirs 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are encyclopedias not for the recording of clear, correct information, rather than unclear or incorrect information? The inclusion of "biannual" with a meaning synonymous with "biennial" will hardly reduce the confusion surrounding the word. I would like the second definition to be removed - I will not make this edit myself, as I am not familiar with Wikitionary's guidelines regarding questionable definitions. Anybody who does know the guidelines and does want to remove it, feel free. --148.177.193.210 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct except in two matters. Firstly, Wiktionary is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia Don't worry, I've made a similar mistake myself. Secondly, the policy of Wiktionary is to record how words are actually used (with guidelines about how some people think they ought to be used). I am completely in agreement with you about the mis-use of biannual when biennial is intended. I was taught to distinguish between the two words. We record this "official view" by using the "proscribed" tag. It remains true, however, that surprisingly many people, some of them well-educated, use biannual to mean every two years, so I don't think it would be fair to delete the "proscribed" entry which simply records educated usage. (This "mis-use" dates as far back as the Illustrated Sydney News of 1884.) Dbfirs 08:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are encyclopedias not for the recording of clear, correct information, rather than unclear or incorrect information? The inclusion of "biannual" with a meaning synonymous with "biennial" will hardly reduce the confusion surrounding the word. I would like the second definition to be removed - I will not make this edit myself, as I am not familiar with Wikitionary's guidelines regarding questionable definitions. Anybody who does know the guidelines and does want to remove it, feel free. --148.177.193.210 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. See archived discussion of March 2008. 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)