Talk:tropology

RFC discussion: April 2015
Definition doesn't seem to be in line with what an internet search says, and quite frankly looks like a protologism. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hardly new! The OED has cites dating back to 1475.  We could possibly expand the entry and add some older quotations.    D b f  i  r  s   21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it have cites for this definition? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Which sense are we questioning? Should we combine 1 and 3?    D b f  i  r  s   21:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added senses 2 and 3. I didn't merge as suggested because sense 1 is tagged and because of the complication I put in the usage note. Basically sense 3 is the countable version of sense 1 but reverts to something very like . A couple more citations for sense 1 may help.— Pingkudimmi 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It only had one definition at the time of nomination: . Renard Migrant (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)