Talk:Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Word appears twice?

The article currently says, "The dish's name is mentioned only twice, in one of the last speeches of the play." However, based on the English translations I have seen, it only appears once. Can anyone confirm the number of appearances? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Short Hyphen?

The article title may be a lost cause, but I think the article text itself may benefit from the unorthodox “short hyphen” character (HTML entity ­) for the sake of line breaking in *ahem* the word of the topic at hand. There are, however, technical difficulties that may arise from this, as not all browsers treat the character the same way (it has to do with ucky unspecific specifications). Thoughts? -BRPXQZME (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IPA

Somebody should DEFINITELY put together an IPA pronunciation for this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.78.180 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be rather pointless to put such a thing for the English transliteration, as I imagine it is said so little that no typical pronunciation could be garnered. However, an IPA for the Ancient Greek term is worthwhile, but not here. It belongs in a dictionary. Atelaes (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this will get deleted but... hehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.116.172 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's just call this article 'Longest word in Greek'

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon → Longest word in Greek — The current title is unreasonably long, and there are similar existing Wikipedia articles: Longest word in Turkish and Longest word in Spanish. Objectivesea (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a made up word. Therefore, it is in Greek, but anyone make up an even longer one. This article refers to the particular word of Aristophanes. --FocalPoint (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed title would be a perfectly reasonable redirect; but as a title it misstates the scope of the article. There was a longest word in Greek before Aristophanes was born, shorter than this; there may be some modern Greek pedant coining a longer word now. Both these would belong in the new article (as would a papyrus with a word from the Middle Comedy), but not this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What about: Aristophanes' long or culinary word in Assemblywomen?

Catalographer (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Category:Ancient Greek cuisine and Category:Ancient Greek comedy I just used the short link Lopado...pterygon . The long form was not at all helpful for the reader.Catalographer (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re: Lopado...

I was looking at the aforementioned article with a long title, and I noticed that you had added ouzo to the list of ingredients. If this was simply random nonsense, then you need do nothing further, as I have reverted it. However, if this was a good faith edit, then I would like to hear what your basis for it was. Please feel free to respond to this query on the article's talk page, as I have it on my watchlist. Many thanks. Atelaes (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke. If you look again at my revision of the article, you'll see that I cited a book as a source, namely G. Vogel (1980) The Big Book Of Amazing Facts Playmore Pubs, which says, "This word is the name of a food - a fricassee made of 17 sweet and sour ingredients, including brains, honey, mullet, vinegar, pickles, and the Greek liqueur Ouzo."--The Machine (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that, but unfortunately I cannot access the book cited, so I could not read the text you were reading. I guess my confusion ultimately lies in the basis for such an assertion. The word contains no components which could be translated as ouzo, at least none that I can find (if you follow the Wiktionary link, the etymology section has all the components broken down and linked). Unless the source is claiming that one of the specific components can be translated as ouzo, we have to reject its claims. Ultimately, the dish is fictitious, and so some kind of historical assessment is moot. We can only approach it from a linguistic perspective. Atelaes (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If I understand you correctly, you are telling The Machine that the published source he mentions must be discounted because it disagrees with what you believe to be true. I don't think that's the way it works. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking what the source's reasoning is, i.e. what they're basing that assertion upon. Atelaes (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What the book's basis for including ouzo is? It doesn't say. But then, I wouldn't expect it to. It's a non-fiction book and I would have thought that that fact alone would be enough unless there was any particular reason to doubt what it says.
Which brings me to the Wiktionary entry. I don't think that it can be used as a basis for a counter-argument because the etymology section seems to be incomplete. Look:-
  • λοπάς(dish, meal) Not an ingredient
  • τέμαχος(fish slice) 1
  • σέλαχος(shark, ray) 2
  • γαλεός(dogfish, small shark) 3
  • κρανίον(head) Not an ingredient
  • λείψανον(remnant) Not an ingredient
  • δριμύς(sharp, pungent) Not an ingredient
  • ὑπότριμμα(generally sharp-tasting dish of several ingredients grated and pounded together) Not an ingredient
  • σίλφιον(laserwort) 4
  • κάραβος(crab, beetle, or crayfish) 5
  • μέλι(honey) 6
  • κατακεχυμένος(poured down) (Perfect middle/passive participle of καταχέω) Not an ingredient
  • κίχλη(wrasse,thrush) 7
  • ἐπί(upon, on top of) Not an ingredient
  • κόσσυφος(a kind of sea-fish or blackbird) 8
  • φάττα(wood pigeon) 9
  • περιστερός(domestic pigeon) 10
  • ἀλεκτρυών(chicken) 11
  • ὀπτός(roasted, baked) Not an ingredient
  • κεφάλιον(diminutive of "head") Not an ingredient
  • κίγκλος(dabchick) 12
  • πέλεια(pigeon) 13
  • λαγῷος(hare) 14
  • σίραιον(new wine boiled down) 15
  • βαφή(dipping) Not an ingredient
  • τραγανός(crunchy) Not an ingredient
  • πτέρυξ(wing, fin) 16
Only sixteen ingredients. One short.--The Machine (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. My point is that the book cannot have a proper basis for that assumption. This is not a real dish. This is a play on words which Aristophanes used to ridicule the sometimes agglutinating habit of Greek. It is fictional. There is no other basis for an assertion of what is in it other than the words which make up the larger word. Atelaes (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The book will have a proper basis for including ouzo. It just doesn't say what that basis is because that's not the focus of the book's article (it's about long words).
As far as I can see, it's quite simple:-
  1. We know that Lopado...[e.t.c.] has 17 ingredients.
  2. Wiktionary's definition lists 16 ingredients, leaving one unaccounted for.
  3. The Big Book Of Amazing Facts says that the dish has ouzo in it.
  4. Ouzo is not among the 16 ingredients already mentioned on Wiktionary.
The obvious conclusion is that that missing seventeenth ingredient must be ouzo. --The Machine (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I reiterate my point, that since this is not a real dish, but a fictional one, the only basis for such an assertion is a linguistic one. Also, I am curious about the basis for the assertion of 17 ingredients. Is that simply from the article? One could certainly interpret different numbers of ingredients. Perhaps λείψανον could be interpreted as the 17th ingredient (I'm inclined to agree with your count myself, but my point is that it's somewhat subjective). Finally, I don't think we should simply accept any written source as automatically authoritative and infallible. What with some of the studies showing Encyclopedia Brittanica to have similar numbers of errors to our own 'pedia, I think we have to allow common sense to serve as a filtering mechanism. Which is not to say that citing printed sources is a bad idea, by any means. Atelaes (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore to this discussion, may I ask why the list on this page is not the same as the elements which make up the name. For example, I do not see cheese (tyris) anywhere. This is confusing. [[User:Nonmuscascapto|&66030;]] [[User_talk:Nonmuscascapto|<small>NMC</small>]] (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (sorry, signature broken at the moment)

Ouzo didn't exist when Aristophanes was writing. It's hard to believe it could have been an ingredient. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First word of the article appears to have been edited/vandalized?

The first word of the article is probably supposed to be the word itself, but it looks like someone has changed it. I didn't want to change it back for fear of misspelling/perpetuating the problem.Weesasuzi (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are several slightly different ways to transliterate ancient Greek, and the word used more than one of them, inconsistently. (And one simple error: gamma before another guttural is a nasal ng, as in Άγγελος, angel; spelled in English n. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is there an ö in there? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a diaeresis. The Greek has an omega with iota subscript followed by a omicron. I suppose it ought to be oö or oio - probably the former, but switch if you disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 25 Septeber 2009 (UTC)
I think oö is preferable. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
One more mistake is, if you check carefully:

On the article's name its written : Lopad...okranioleipsanodrimhypotrim... And the first word is : Lopad...ocranioleipsanodrimhypotrim... Extra999Extra999 (talk 23:29, 29 September 2009

Anyboy has corrected it now. --Extra999 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

this rather sounds like a recipe than a word. --88.229.2.73 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Longest URL?

I did a Google search for the longest URL. When I compared it with this article's URL the article's was longer.

I think this *might* be the world's longest URL.... 99.135.250.148 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How about considering a Guinness World Record for this? :) extra999 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
My website's referral log once showed a link from a search page whose URL may have been longer because it contained a lot of redundant clutter. —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I, too, would like to know how to pronounce it, and where the 'breaks' occur to make sense of where the "fish slices" separates from the "Fish of the Elasmobranchii subclass" segments, etc.68.234.38.20 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Diana very very longest word lopadotemachogaleokranioleisanodrimmhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakekich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.173.52 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Variations of the word

I think it should be noted in the article that there is (or was?) disagreement amongst scholars about the exact spelling of the Greek word, either because the manuscripts are difficult to read or because there are several versions of them. This is separate from the transliteration problems. See also en:wikt:Talk:Unsupported titles/Ancient Greek dish#Difference in spelling. Bever (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Greek wiki

The Greek wiki has some interesting pictures and further info Gts-tg (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For any future reference and/or for anyone interested

See here. Thanatos|talk|contributions 13:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Okay, this word isn't found in normal dictionarys....but that doesn't mean it's unencyclopediec. Excuse my spelling. By the way, does anyone know how to pronouce it??? 99.245.238.83 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC) By: Me!Me!

Whoa it's off the page!Emma Hordika (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why did someone decide to use the full name?
Before I tell you, I should tell you something. "Through the Looking-Glass" is the article, while the same name (but with the subtitle "And What Alice Found There" has been supported to be a redirect. Also, "Llanfairpwllgwyngyll" is the article, while the extended name (which is "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch") has been supported to be a redirect.
So, now that you know, I'll ask the question again. Why did someone decide to use the full name? ANSWER ME! --172.189.209.104 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know the original motivation, but I would ask what you suggest as an alternative? There are no reasonable standards for abbreviating such an unreasonable word.Beeblbrox (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You may also want to read the deletion discussion from the link at the top of the page. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Why does the English, "...silphio-parao-melito..." not match the Greek, "...σιλφιο-καραβο-μελιτο..." (or the "τυρο" version)? Cctimar (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Longest Title of a Wikipedia Article?

I think this may be a candidate for the longest title of any Wikipedia article. If I can figure out how to do a search of the ~5 million article titles, I will add this information to the article. Does anyone know how this might be accomplished?TheCensorFencer (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There are seven longer titles, although they're all sentences. Mentioning anything like this in the article would seem self-indulgent, though - it's also likely to be the longest word in many other reference works. --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Quite. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid applies here - e.g. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" - otherwise we'd disappear up ourselves in infinite recursion. NebY (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everybody, that all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I appreciate the good information, as well as the prompt responses. Cheers!TheCensorFencer (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The transcription is incorrect (non-trivially)

I can read ancient Greek (just so you know), and I've checked the original in Aristophanes. Also, when I was very young (and before I knew Greek), I learned this word from the transcription in the Guinness book of records. So:

1) I am reasonably certain (from memory) that the 'transcription' is the same as the one that appears in the Guinness book of records.

2) Comparing the actual Greek word, the 'parao' about half-way through is incorrect, and the transcription SHOULD be either

Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon

or, in the variant

Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioturomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon

In short, Guinness must have got it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufflethrug (talk • contribs) 08:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the word

So is there an origin for the word or was the word just randomly made up by the creator of the dish? -- Annonymus user (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's compounded from the names of the ingredients, apparently. —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Expanding on that, the origin is Greek λοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοκαραβομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττοπεριστεραλεκτρυονοπτοκεφαλλιοκιγκλοπελειολαγῳοσιραιοβαφητραγανοπτερύγων. The linked page lists the Greek words broken down, with English meanings. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
So why isn't the dish name multiple words instead of one long word? Like "fish and chips" or "bread and butter pudding"? -- Annonymus user (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
In several languages (like German and Finnish), compound words are more normal than in English. Also it seems that at the time, in Attic Greek, it was fashionable to make long compounds. Aristophanes was ridiculing that fashion. Bever (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If you can find a reference for Aristophanes' intent, it should be included in the article. --Error (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone obviously vandalized this article. Someone who isn't very smart. How do you report this? 70.127.15.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Лοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοκαραβομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττο...νοπτερύγων.jpg|nomination page]]. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

RfD notice

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Lopado pterygon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lopado pterygon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#Lopado pterygon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

--Devokewater (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of article

There needs to be a discussion before this article is renamed, Christian75 changed the name back to the original name, however the article has been subsequently renamed yet again.

--Devokewater (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2021

The result was not moved; majority opposed, meets closing guidelines Luxtaythe2nd (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon → Lopado...pterygon – I assume that this has already been asked and am asking for this formally again. There is no need to use an extremely long title merely because it is official or strictly correct (WP:COMMONNAME). No one would actually memorize the article name; everyone would rather remember a short name like our already-existent Lopado...pterygon. Furthermore, the word is so long that the article title will flow over the right edge of your screen unless you have configured your device/Wikipedia to display it in tiny characters. It is technically difficult to display it. WIKINIGHTS talk 15:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

These were deletion requests not move requests so I don’t see how a speedy keep applies here since since the nominator is clearly not calling for deletion here.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The notability of a topic does not necessarily prevent its article from being moved to a more natural title. This is requested moves, not AfD. I am fully aware that this topic is notable, but am certain that the article's title is the wrong one to use. WIKINIGHTS talk 18:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
In other news, the long title is disfiguring my watchlist. Goes to show how impractical it is. WIKINIGHTS talk 18:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I see your floccinaucinihilipilification, that you estimate this as worthless. So do I. WP:NOTDIC. Plenty of the names of chemicals could be expanded indefinetely, so it essentially comes down to WP:RS. I Imagine it would break column widths in RS journals. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I suspect it would just use multiple lines of text in a journal, with some inserted hyphens at line breaks, which is not an unusual phenomenon in multicolumn publications. Anyhow, this is a naming discussion, not a deletion discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not technically difficult to display it. Font rendering systems differ, but generally each glyph or ligature is rasterized atveach demanded point size and then a clipping algorithm applied. It is not at all difficult to render; Don Knuth did it fifty-odd years ago with quadratic b-splines although most modern systems use cubic b-splines. It is difficult to read: WP:READER. Columns are split into columns for that very purpose, Mark Twain testing an earkly typewriter wrote "it puts an awful stack of words on one page". 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to {{stet}} my typos. They scroll before I can correct them. Q.E.D.. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The technical difficulty I was thinking about is that it warps the display of the page itself, watchlists, recent changes, etc. WIKINIGHTS talk 21:20, 11 August 2021
yep i agree. Pleasevexcise me thevlong title makes a muckbof myvediting ob my Samsung Galaxy G12 screen. As a bit of a linguist, lopado sounds more Romance languages. It isnt it is {{lang-grc}}》which as it happens split on teh hyphen in the template. This should go Wp:g1. It was nonsense in Greek now it's nonsense in English. -85.67.32.244 (talk)
Again, I shall stet my typos. Editors' inconvenience is secondary, this is an inconvenience to readers. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This page has the feel of a stale April Fool's joke. An alternative would be to just merge to Assemblywomen § Longest word. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    support what? The keep or delete? It really mucks up my tiny mobile screen, and somewhete i read that over half of Wikipedia readers are on mobile phones [citation needed]. This iz patently inconvenient gfor′k editors. My claim is it is invonvenient for readers. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    Presumably, they support moving it. This isn't a deletion discussion, lol. This is an WP:RM, not WP:AFD. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Please note the recent (March 2020) consensus to not move in a discussion at Talk:Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu, which seems somewhat related. If the length of the word is part of its notability, would we not be sacrificing the notable aspect (and thus the WP:COMMONNAME) by moving it? Any source that discusses the subject in detail would surely include the complete spelling. Are there any reliable sources that use Lopado...pterygon or Lopado? Perhaps we should seek the opinion of Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr. or suggest Fiona Apple to write a song about this. (See also the 2015 discussion at Talk:Llanfairpwllgwyngyll.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While the article title is (very) long, "Lopado...pterygon" and "Lopado" aren't commonly used abbreviations, and someone looking for this article probably wouldn't think to search for one of those. Also, this RM from 2009 resulted in 'Do not move'. - Poydoo can talk and edit 19:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that this discussion is heading into a more principles-based one. Perhaps we will need a publicized RfC at the MOS to resolve the issue of extremely long article names. What do you think? WIKINIGHTS talk 20:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • There are only a handful of articles that raise these issues. I think the usual guidelines and some case-by-case discussion will suffice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I haven't seen Lopado...pterygon or other similar abbreviations be as widely used as the full name of the dish. A Google search for the full name received 1400 hits, but the proposed abbreviation (in quotes) received 664. Maybe a redirect leading from Wikipedia searches for 'Long Ancient Greek dish' to this article would help people find it better. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To all those !voting oppose. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for an optimal title and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an incorrect title on this topic so an absurdly long title is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by using an absurdly long title and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
How is the full name of the dish incorrect? I'm pretty sure people will be able to tell that this is the article they're looking for based on the search results. - Poydoo can talk and edit 23:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Poydoo We are not saying that this full name is incorrect. We are saying that we should have a correct title that is at the same time not too long. The current title is correct, but is too long. And I have been influenced by a comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9, which said To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results.. Long titles are really problematic. Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The redirect appears to be getting about 50 hits a month. The current (long) title is getting 7,300 hits a month. So the current title is much more popular to readers than the proposed one, and there is no clear need for action. The above-referenced redirect discussion was about a different redirect and was not part of a consensus declaration. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
But we need to get rid of the long title somehow. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
No, we don't. SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If there really was a technical problem, then the tech crew would block usage of such long titles (which would be trivial). They don't, so the title is fine from a tech perspective. The only valid reason to move is if there's a belief that there's a better title for readers. To be sure, the current title is awkwardly long, but there isn't a good case that the abbreviation is better or more accurate. Since the reason that this topic is known at all is precisely because of the extremely long title, going against it and moving would make the new shortened title LESS useful, if anything. SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem with long titles is that they flow out of the screen. There needs to be some balance. The proposed abbreviation is not the solution. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon

Regarding But we need to get rid of the long title somehow, I've just boldly moved this to Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon. It's still the same title, but with soft hyphens added. Noting that the title in the lead section is Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon, that's: 

{{shy|Lopado|temacho|selacho|galeo|kranio|leipsano|drim|hypo|trimmato|silphio|karabo|melito|katakechy|meno|kichl|epi|kossypho|phatto|perister|alektryon|opte|kephallio|kigklo|peleio|lagoio|siraio|baphe|tragano|pterygon}}

I created a redirect by substituting that template to test the title out, and upon seeing it work, I moved this article over the top of the redirect I just created.

This removes the need to scroll right to see the end of the title, because it rolls right off the side of my widescreen desktop. It goes as far as it can, then puts a hyphen at the end of the line at the nearest soft break and continues the rest of the title on a second line. If I reduce the zoom level to 67% I make the hyphen go away as then the complete title fits in one line.

I'm not seeing a consensus for the proposed shorter title, but I trust this solution is acceptable for resolving the technical issues with display on smaller screens. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Wouldn't the DISPLAYTITLE element have been a better option than adding soft hyphens to the name? —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I just tried putting DISPLAYTITLE on the redirect (the previous title that I just moved this from), and in preview I got the warning message:

Warning: Display title "Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon" was ignored since it is not equivalent to the page's actual title.

which is what I expected would happen. As far as I know DISPLAYTITLE is only useful for displaying the first letter of a title in lowercase or putting all or part of a title in italics.
You can see this yourself by editing Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon and clicking Show preview. That page, along with over 6,000 other pages, is now in Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Footnote: Although the above RM was closed as "not moved", the article was actually moved (to insert soft hyphens) during the discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lopado­temacho­selacho­galeo­kranio­leipsano­drim­hypo­trimmato­silphio­karabo­melito­katakechy­meno­kichl­epi­kossypho­phatto­perister­alektryon­opte­kephallio­kigklo­peleio­lagoio­siraio­baphe­tragano­pterygon/Archive_1&oldid=1217245470"