Talk:tumbleweed moment
Latest comment: 16 years ago by DAVilla in topic tumbleweed moment
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Listed on Urbandictionary, one b.g.c. hit. Seems more apt for WT:-)? --Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. It had three cites to permanent media, spanning at least a year and a half, when it was RFVed.—msh210℠ 17:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because I confused RFV with RFD (which used to be just RFD, but years later was split into RFD/RFV with a long-standing recommendation that things generally should be RFV'd before RFDing) and because the sources I checked didn't support this as a valid entry. (i.e. "tumbleweed+moment", "tumbleweed+moment", [1], [2], but instead: "tumbleweed moment".) Rather than move it to RFD now, does anyone object to simply tagging it as
{{UK}}? --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because I confused RFV with RFD (which used to be just RFD, but years later was split into RFD/RFV with a long-standing recommendation that things generally should be RFV'd before RFDing) and because the sources I checked didn't support this as a valid entry. (i.e. "tumbleweed+moment", "tumbleweed+moment", [1], [2], but instead: "tumbleweed moment".) Rather than move it to RFD now, does anyone object to simply tagging it as
- This raises a question in my mind. Does it make any difference that two of the attestation quotations take the trouble to define the term? To me that indicates that the term is NOT idiomatic for the general reader in the mind of the author. OTOH, I would prefer to see a quotation that defines the term in the final entry. DCDuring 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, surely you should be checking "tumbleweed+moment" Google News Archives, which shows 5 independent uses over 3 years (10 over 9 years when combined with the plural)? Aside from which I don't understand why you would RFD something on the basis of not being widespread enough when it has three verifiable citations in use, and plenty more where those came from... I would have thought the existing citations were enough to show that this meets CFI. I don't understand why this entry was singled out at all -- unless you believe it is sum-of-parts in re #tumbleweed above, in which case the proper thing to do would be to participate in that discussion. -- Visviva 15:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that link - I hadn't noticed that was also listed. Yes, of course this is sum-of-parts, but perhaps idiomatic enough for inclusion. To repeat my question: does anyone object to simply tagging it
{{UK}}? Or does it need to move to RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that link - I hadn't noticed that was also listed. Yes, of course this is sum-of-parts, but perhaps idiomatic enough for inclusion. To repeat my question: does anyone object to simply tagging it
- Looks like it would be correct. Even the last quote uses the "centre" spelling. DAVilla 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had no idea what it meant until I accessed the page. My best guess was a moment when you feel adrift - cut off from the life of the world. In no way could this be considered SOP. 87.114.156.2 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is sum-of-parts for one definition of tumbleweed, the one under RFV. However, that is not the primary definition, obviously, so the combination cannot be readily ascribed a meaning. SOP is not the criterion we use. This one passes the test for idiomaticity, which is a fact I don't think is being disputed at this point. DAVilla 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)