Talk:zonal
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Dbfirs in topic Specific meaning
Specific meaning[edit]
I would have thought that definition 3 is just a repeat of 1 or 2 applied in a geophysical context. I'm sure I could find usages of the adjective in lots of other specialist contexts. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 18:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Dbfirs. It is not the same meaning; whereas the two general meanings refer to zones or the divisions into zones, the specific meaning refers to movement. Specialized meanings should be included if they have a meaning different (or more specific) than the more general, since a user may be looking for that meaning. For example, the general meanings will not make much sense in the sentence "The collision of zonal and longitudinal streams causes strong local turbulence". Feel free to add other specialized meanings (below the general meanings) if they are referenced. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:59:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that the Geographical meaning is identical to general meaning 1 with the added implication that the zones are latitudinal. In this sense, we can regard it as a specialist meaning, but I cannot accept that movement is implied in the quote you give. Dbfirs 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The example demonstrated that the general meaning does not make sense in a specialized context; it did not demonstrate the specialized meaning itself, as that is known and referenced. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I accept that this is a valid reference. The definition seems to be known to Michael Pidwirny, but is this special meaning known to other geographers, or is it just a Michael Pidwirny interpretation? I suppose it is not our job to ask. BTW, have you noticed that all three of the other references point to the same place? This needs fixing! Dbfirs 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a mistake; the same source contains all three dictionaries. The references are templated, so that all links can easily be updated if that sources goes down or drops a dictionary. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- But all three point to the same page, not to three different dictionaries. This means that there is really only one reference. Are the other two not available on-line? If this is the case, then why do we show a link? Dbfirs 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- All three dictionaries are on the same page; scroll down and you will see headers like "American Heritage Dictionary" or "WordNet" above each dictionary entry. Unfortunately, there's no way to link directly to a particular section. There's no reason to link to difference sources for each dictionary, unless they're not available in the same place. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- But all three point to the same page, not to three different dictionaries. This means that there is really only one reference. Are the other two not available on-line? If this is the case, then why do we show a link? Dbfirs 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is not a mistake; the same source contains all three dictionaries. The references are templated, so that all links can easily be updated if that sources goes down or drops a dictionary. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I accept that this is a valid reference. The definition seems to be known to Michael Pidwirny, but is this special meaning known to other geographers, or is it just a Michael Pidwirny interpretation? I suppose it is not our job to ask. BTW, have you noticed that all three of the other references point to the same place? This needs fixing! Dbfirs 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The example demonstrated that the general meaning does not make sense in a specialized context; it did not demonstrate the specialized meaning itself, as that is known and referenced. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that the Geographical meaning is identical to general meaning 1 with the added implication that the zones are latitudinal. In this sense, we can regard it as a specialist meaning, but I cannot accept that movement is implied in the quote you give. Dbfirs 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)