User talk:Equinox

Re: channel coal

I came across this erroneous/misspelled entry while conducting research for a book I am writing with a chapter on cannel coal and similar carboniferous rocks. I have pored over the literature on this topic. Any spelling of "channel coal" is 100% a misspelling.

I looked through Google books just now after your note, and I did not find any mentions at all of "channel coal", as used in this sense (i.e. as a misspelling of cannel coal. There are numerous sources referring to the trade of coal in the English Channel, and this (capital "C") "Channel coal" is not the same as cannel coal, which is a specific type of bituminous shale. There are also numerous references to coal found in sedimentary channel deposits—as in lithified vegetable remains found in deposits of an ancient river channel. There are also numerous references to coal shipping and navigation of the ships that transport those coals within many different navigable channels. Lastly, there are several sources that just happen to contain the words "channel" and "coal" juxtaposed next to one another, with an intervening period or comma. As far as I can tell, there are exactly zero references to "channel coal" in the sense of the bituminous, fissile shale that is called cannel coal or candle coal, and that is unsurprising to me, because this entry was an obvious misspelling.

The word itself is a phonetic spelling of candle coal, as pronounced in antique, regional British English. It has no relation to the word "channel".

I would appreciate it if you would revert your changes and leave this matter to domain experts (e.g. yours truly), and also examine the Google books results more closely before making a decision that is supposedly based on them.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

‘Misspelled’ terms can gain acceptance in the language too. We are a descriptive dictionary that documents anything that is attested. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have (boldly) changed the entry to "misconstruction" — however, from my brief glance over the texts, I think this term was really used, so let's not delete it in pure horror. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but such a misspelling is not attested—except within all of the dozens of websites that mirror content from wiktionary, i.e. from this erroneous entry.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hermes Thrice Great: Excuse my slow reply: I avoid my talk page like the plague. You seem to be somebody with a clue in the area. Nevertheless you should use the same process like WT:RFD or WT:RFV. I'm pretty sure I did see "channel coal" in old dictionaries, so your best bet may be to turn it into either "misspelling of", or "misconstruction of", or something of the kind. The question is whether the phrase exists or not. And if it was prevalent enough to be a pop-error in the 1900s well...! Equinox ◑ 22:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Equinox From my perspective, as someone who has a certain depth of knowledge in this subject area, it fit the criteria for speedy deletion as an "obvious misspelling" of the headword. Therefore I did not use {{rfd}} or {{rfv}}, but rather {{delete}}.

I am not convinced there is enough evidence/attestation of the "misconstruction" of cannel coal as channel coal beyond its repeated appearance throughout the internet as a result of the mirroring of this erroneous content on Wiktionary to merit keeping it around, but I am open to either bringing this discussion to a wider circle of people as a Tea Room discussion or as a proper RFD and allowing others and/or yourself the opportunity to find such definitive proof of attestation.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There are three pre-Wikt quotes on the page. It's not solely us who's using the word, but rather other people. CitationsFreak (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Right I'm sick of this bollocks on my talk page so we are going to RFD. Enjoy! Equinox ◑ 00:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)