User talk:FDR

Related terms

Related terms (which I admit is a confusing header for many) means etymologically related, not topically related. Topically related terms go in coordinate terms or see also. Pedophilia is related to ephebophilia because of the -philia. I suppose since all -philia and -phile words are etymologically related to each other, in this case perhaps 'see also' is a better choice. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but Lolita complex is not even etymologically related, and Humbert was definitely either a hebephile or pedophile, his victim was not done with puberty. So in that case the term is not really related. Could that be removed?--FDR (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, lots of people use the related terms header wrong. It's understandable because 'related' normally means topically related, and if you want to explanation you need to know that the right place is WT:ELE, which newcomers do not know! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I just think that things like that should be avoided because a lot of people mistakenly believe that being sexually attracted to 15-17 year olds is pedophilia, and that's not true, its only such if they are either still in puberty or have not begun puberty yet, and most 15-17 year olds, especially females, are not in the process of puberty anymore. It reinforces the popular mistaken definition of pedophilia as being attraction to anyone under 18. --FDR (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We're a descriptive dictionary: if people mean it a certain way when they use it, that's what we go with- whether it's technically right or wrong. Information about what's considered incorrect usage can be addressed in "Usage notes" sections, and by using the {{context}} template to mark the sense as "proscribed" or something like that. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)