Talk:Dark Archives

Bibliopegy
Does "anthropodermic bibliopegy" have any advantage over "binding in human skin'? It has more syllables, and I notice that it's explained more than once, whereas "binding in human skin" requires no explanation. 27.134.39.209 (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Given it's the technical term-of-art, and the name our dedicated article is at, I find it useful to define in the article. I use both terms depending on which flows better in the sentence, and introduce definitions in its first lead-and-body mention given the fact it is a technical term. There's a value to having a fewer-words description of something even when it's polysyllabic; in medical articles you run into similar issues around symptoms (e.g. clinodactyly and "incurved pinky fingers", epicanthic folds and "additional folds of skin in the corners of the eyes"). Vaticidalprophet 11:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Clinodactyly" suggests to me a coining that's designed to help doctors familiar with the relevant word-parts (and to need no additional English); "anthropodermic" perhaps likewise; but "bibliopegy" sounds like the jocular product of some TV game show. After all, for any alternative to human skin, "binding" and "bound" seem to do the job. Still, if this polysyllabic term is used (other than as a droll euphemism), I suppose the article may use it. 110.2.104.224 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

One Dark and nasty Subject
Given the questionable subject matter, should Wikipedia be highlighting an issue that might only be of interest to those in the medical world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.215 (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)