Talk:phagedena

I think this is archaic: there's no Wikipedia article, and Google Books finds mainly results from the 1800s. User:JonRichfield removed that gloss. Equinox ◑ 04:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

On my own talk page, I responded to much the same claim as follows:

That is not correct. One item I include is a current WHO article. The other is 21st century reference to a 1941 mention of a usage that differs between France and the US! I realise that the US is dominant; but not as dominant as all that. If you prefer a less definitive term, such as "obsolescent", we could discuss it, but there are plenty of medical terms with regional current usage that it would be misleading to call "obsolete".

Also, I have just had a look on google, and in general there are thousands of hits, with hundreds in books, many of them this century.

I think we need to reconsider our usage of "Obsolete", "obsolescent", "archaic", etc. It is quite a responsibility to label words in that fashion, possibly especially technical words.

Just at present I have little to add to my response at that time. To call a word "archaic" because it has been in diminishing and regional use in the last century or so would really be over the top. JonRichfield (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ahah. Maybe we could split the difference on say, "dated" rather than "archaic"? I cannot swear to its being everywhere dated, but in English practice, it seems to be not unreasonable. JonRichfield (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)