The tag alias #47364 onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia has been rejected.

Reason: Common enough spelling mistake

EDIT: The tag alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia (forum #297623) has been approved by @Millcore.

EDIT: The tag alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia (forum #297623) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The tag alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia (forum #297623) has been approved by @Millcore.

The tag alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia (forum #297623) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

auto_moderator said:
The tag alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia (forum #297623) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

D:

why was the alias flipped to favour the misspelling?

It's not actually the misspelling but the American English variant, which people generally tend to argue in favor of.

EDIT: I agree it should be flipped back, as per below replies.

faucet said:
It's not actually the misspelling but the American English variant, which people generally tend to argue in favor of.

I swear I've only ever seen it spelled with the "poe" but I'm also kinda dyslexic so... but also spell check on Chrome and Firefox and pretty much everywhere else seems to prefer it with the "poe" as well. and they don't even like when I spell favour with a u.

faucet said:
It's not actually the misspelling but the American English variant, which people generally tend to argue in favor of.

i don't think even americans use that spelling

it seems like the "pe" spelling is more Portuguese than it is American English, pretty much the only places that I can find that spelling in English are Wikipedia and Wiktionary. searching it on Google only gives like two pages of results.

- Cambridge Dictionary: lists "onomatopoeia" as the US and UK spelling. "onomatopeia" gives an error.
- Oxford Dictionary: lists "onomatopoeia" as the spelling under American English. "onomatopeia" gives an error.
- Collins Dictionary: lists "onomatopoeia" as the spelling under American English and British English. "onomatopeia" gives an error.

Not a single dictionary I could find recognized "onomatopeia" at all, and they listed "onomatopoeia" without specifying its region--because it's the same spelling in both regions. Given that the only sources are two sites well-known for being easily edited, I think this is a mistake at best and malicious at worst.

@Rainbow_Dash Could you change this back please?

faucet said:
It's not actually the misspelling but the American English variant, which people generally tend to argue in favor of.

I was taught in school that onomatopoeia is proper, and it was an American school. If our city has any external influence, it's from Japan of all places, not Britain.

Why was this rejected? And even worse, flipped? "onomatopeia" isn't a variant, it's objectively a misspelling.

The bulk update request #3037 is active.

remove alias onomatopoeia (51986) -> onomatopeia (0)
remove implication onomatopeia (0) -> sound_effects (88739)
remove implication onomatopeia (0) -> text (1056159)

Reason: Millcore had it correct originally. The correct spelling is indeed onomatopoeia, even in the US.

These aliases and implications need to be removed first, however.

The next stage BUR:

alias impact_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia
alias motion_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
alias contact_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply onomatopoeia -> sound_effects
imply onomatopoeia -> text

EDIT: The bulk update request #3037 (forum #342163) has failed: Alias for impact_onomatopoeia not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #3037 (forum #342163) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

For vis, I DM'd Rainbow Dash about this thread.

Rainbow Dash said:

It looks incredibly wrong with the o and isn't consistent with lots of other words like that. I've always seen it spelled like this in the US

strikerman said:
For vis, I DM'd Rainbow Dash about this thread.

Rainbow Dash said:

It looks incredibly wrong with the o and isn't consistent with lots of other words like that. I've always seen it spelled like this in the US

That is so wrong, it's spelled with the O in the US.

strikerman said:
For vis, I DM'd Rainbow Dash about this thread.

Then he's seen it misspelled, there's no "official" record of "onomatopeia" outside of a (very) recently added, unsourced claim of it being a valid variant to the Wikipedia page. Millcore's approval was correct, especially when "onomatopeia" had virtually no use before the aliasing.

Rainbow Dash said:

It looks incredibly wrong with the o and isn't consistent with lots of other words like that. I've always seen it spelled like this in the US

It's not uncommon for us to look at a word, even a worb* that we've used for years, and think that it just has to be misspelled. Yet, when we look it up, we discover that, yes, it is spelled correctly. That's one reason what dictionaries are for, to provide us with a third party source to help fact check our spelling assumptions. Even Wiktionary treats onomatopoeia as the correct form, with onomatopeia being the "US spelling of onomatopoeia", which has been shown incorrect above. Onomatopeia isn't the US spelling; it's a misspelling, plain and simple. It's likely Wiktionary's entry was added by someone who felt similarly to Rainbow Dash, and it hasn't been corrected yet.
_________________

• worb, n. A familiar word, such as "weird", that just doesn't look right the more you stare at it; in fact, it looks weird. ~ Afterliff

The bulk update request #3037 (forum #342163) has failed: Alias for impact_onomatopoeia not found

The bulk update request #3037 (forum #342163) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I blame milly and sticking plaster for this

The bulk update request #3053 is active.

mass update onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia
create implication onomatopoeia (51986) -> sound_effects (88739)
create implication onomatopoeia (51986) -> text (1056159)
remove implication contact_onomatopeia (0) -> onomatopeia (0)
remove implication motion_onomatopeia (0) -> onomatopeia (0)
remove implication impact_onomatopeia (0) -> contact_onomatopeia (0)

Reason: The rest of the (honk honk boing boing ahh-ooooooogaaah) story.

rainbow_dash said:
I blame milly and sticking plaster for this

That's okay. You're just as normal as the rest of us. (Which probably isn't saying much, come to think of it. :\ )
___________________

The tags impact_onomatopoeia/impact_onomatopeia, motion_onomatopoeia/motion_onomatopeia, contact_onomatopoeia/contact_onomatopeia is being argued about here, apparently.

alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia

can't be done until contact_onomatopeia and motion_onomatopeia are unimplied from the former, so an update will have to serve as a stopgap for now. The two still-implied tags use the misspelling anyway.

Next time on the (bonk whee donk donk walla-walla bing-bang) thread:

alias onomatopeia -> onomatopoeia
alias contact_onomatopeia -> contact_onomatopoeia
alias impact_onomatopeia -> impact_onomatopoeia
alias motion_onomatopeia -> motion_onomatopoeia

I think I've got done what I can do with this BUR. Does this look good? Acceptable? Horribly (phwat)?

Addendum Secundus:
Added in the impact_onomatopeia/-opoeia deimplication/reimplication and TheVileOne's suggested implications below.

Addendum Threeth:
Because there still seems to be some contention between implying or aliasing contact/motion/multi-word onomatopoeia, I removed TheVileOne's suggestion for a different BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3053 (forum #342271) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

You should remove the implication of impact_onomatopeia from contact_onomatopeia, so you wont have problems aliasing it to impact_onomatopoeia. Also you can add implications to the current BUR.

imply contact_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply motion_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply multi-word_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia

thevileone said:
You should remove the implication of impact_onomatopeia from contact_onomatopeia, so you wont have problems aliasing it to impact_onomatopoeia.

Good catch. I forgot to check the sub-onomatopoeia tags, too.

Also you can add implications to the current BUR.

imply contact_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply motion_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply multi-word_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia

Done, as they are forms of onomatopoeia, although I was under the impression there was still some disagreement with them.

Readers: If you voted above before tonight's revisions, be sure to re-evaluate your vote. After all, I may have changed it more than you like.

thevileone said:
Also you can add implications to the current BUR.

imply contact_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply motion_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia
imply multi-word_onomatopoeia -> onomatopoeia

I'm thinking alias.

The bulk update request #3177 is active.

create implication contact_onomatopoeia (5490) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create implication motion_onomatopoeia (2324) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create implication multi-word_onomatopoeia (303) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create implication impact_onomatopoeia (4372) -> contact_onomatopoeia (5490)

Reason: The VileOne's suggestion, separated out from the previous BUR for better organizational purposes.

This is starting to confuse me, especially when I get to it cold. :p

cane751 said:
I'm thinking alias.

Because there still seems to be some disagreement with these, I removed them from the other BUR and put them into their own.

Readers: If you voted above before today's revisions, be sure to re-evaluate your vote. After all, I may have changed it more than you like.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3177 (forum #342794) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

clawstripe said:
The bulk update request #3177 is active.

create implication contact_onomatopoeia (5490) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create implication motion_onomatopoeia (2324) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create implication multi-word_onomatopoeia (303) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create implication impact_onomatopoeia (4372) -> contact_onomatopoeia (5490)

Reason: The VileOne's suggestion, separated out from the previous BUR for better organizational purposes.

This is starting to confuse me, especially when I get to it cold. :p

Because there still seems to be some disagreement with these, I removed them from the other BUR and put them into their own.

Readers: If you voted above before today's revisions, be sure to re-evaluate your vote. After all, I may have changed it more than you like.

I feel like impact and contact should be separate and not have one imply the other. "impact" seems like it'd refer to an interaction between a character and an object or the ground or an interaction between two objects, where as "contact" would be an interaction between two characters.
so, your *crash*es, *clang*s, etc. would be impact, and *slap*s, *plap*s, etc. would be contact.

clawstripe said:
create implication contact_onomatopoeia (1) -> onomatopoeia (380)
create implication motion_onomatopoeia (134) -> onomatopoeia (380)
create implication multi-word_onomatopoeia (51) -> onomatopoeia (380)
create implication impact_onomatopoeia (3) -> contact_onomatopoeia (1)

Are any of these going to be important to finding images? I don't see how the difference between impact vs contact onomatopoeia can be vital to searching for particular images, especially when we already have tags for the act of hitting things and the act of movement, which can be combined with the normal onomatopoeia tag. These should all be aliases, IMO.

watsit said:
Are any of these going to be important to finding images? I don't see how the difference between impact vs contact onomatopoeia can be vital to searching for particular images, especially when we already have tags for the act of hitting things and the act of movement, which can be combined with the normal onomatopoeia tag. These should all be aliases, IMO.

Argue them with TheVileOne and Cane751 (see other thread here ). I just wanted them out of my BUR because it's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do with it.

The bulk update request #3177 (forum #342794) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3053 (forum #342271) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3196 is active.

create alias onomatopeia (0) -> onomatopoeia (51986)
create alias contact_onomatopeia (0) -> contact_onomatopoeia (5490)
create alias impact_onomatopeia (0) -> impact_onomatopoeia (4372)
create alias motion_onomatopeia (0) -> motion_onomatopoeia (2324)

Reason: Final part of the BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3196 (forum #342907) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3196 (forum #342907) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

darryus said:
I feel like impact and contact should be separate and not have one imply the other. "impact" seems like it'd refer to an interaction between a character and an object or the ground or an interaction between two objects, where as "contact" would be an interaction between two characters.
so, your *crash*es, *clang*s, etc. would be impact, and *slap*s, *plap*s, etc. would be contact.

There are a lot of verbs to deal with here, and broad terms to describe them with. Contact is the term intended to be the home to sound effects that do not suggest a collision, or light forms of collisions.

Contact:
- grab, hold, grip, squeeze, clench, grope, fondle
- rub, caress, cuddle, hug, embrace, brush
- scratch
- light impacts: tap, pat, poke, prod

Impact is all of the contact terms that are more forceful than these. Alternatively they could be called hitting, or striking sound effects. Contact, and impact may colloquially have suggested meanings, though concepts are not limited to any particular object, or method. You can have sound effects apply to a character and the ground that are not impact related. The current setup is perhaps one of the easier ways of grouping it: light contact goes in one group, and forceful contact goes in the other group. Since they are both forms of contact, it made sense to keep them together.

They could be one day be separated to refer to light, and forceful contact exclusively, but that's the best we could probably do. I still need to go through and find and tag relevant examples.