Talk:revolution
I've never heard definition #5 "A positive change in one's state of consciousness followed by directed energy and action to manifest that new consciousness in the physical world." before. What is the source for this? --203.113.234.80 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- That sense was added by User:171.64.143.162. It was his only contribution to Wiktionary. I’m like you, I have never heard revolution used in this way. —Stephen 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
RFV discussion (1)[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
In the sense of a change in one's state of consciousness. Jonathan Webley 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
RFV failed. DAVilla 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
RFV discussion (2)[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Subject in revolution states:
5. The turning of an object around an axis.
In astronomy, this is called rotation. A revolution is the orbit around another object (year). A rotation is the period an object rotates on it's axis (day)
Hope this is the correct way to report a bug.
— This unsigned comment was added by Cosmospup (talk • contribs) at 1:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC).
- You are correct, but so is the entry. Astronomers today do use the words as you describe, but as you can see from (for example) google books:"revolutions around its axis", plenty of people have used the word "revolution" to refer to what you would call "rotation". —RuakhTALK 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a usage note.—msh210℠ 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- "The turning of an object around an axis" doesn't only refer to astronomy. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a usage note.—msh210℠ 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Striking. The entry was never tagged, and I don't think anyone can really doubt that this word is used this way. Regardless, I've added one countable b.g.c. cite and one uncountable one, for example's sake, and hopefully msh210's usage note addresses Cosmopup's concern. (But if anyone doubts either or both of these senses, please feel free to tag and list it/them.) —RuakhTALK 18:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)