Talk:Bl. Com.
Latest comment: 10 years ago by BD2412 in topic Bl. Com.
Deletion discussion[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Nothing obvious on a Google book search. (needs a cleanup if OK) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1787, Charles Durnford, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Kings' Bench, Parts 5-7, page 469:
- As well the existence of private customs must be shewn, as that the thing in dispute is within the custom alledged. 1 Bl. Com. 76.
- 1838, Thomas Sergeant, View of Land Laws of Pennsylvania, page 195:
- A manor could not legally exist without a court baron.(1)
(1) 2 Bl. Com. 90. 3 Bl. Com. 33. 4 Bl. Com. 273.
- A manor could not legally exist without a court baron.(1)
- 1877, John Barbee Minor, Institutes of Common and Statute Law, Volume 2, page 70:
- Fealty. Belongs to copyhold, as to all feudal tenures, except estates at will. (1 Th. Co. Lit. 675 ; 2 Bl. Com. 97.) 2e.
- 1987, Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary, page 620:
- Feudum antiquum ; an ancient feud or fief ; a fief descended to the vassal from his ancestors. 2 Bl. Com. 212, 221.
- 2011, Eimear Spain, The Role of Emotions in Criminal Law Defences, page 117:
- He saw necessity as amounting to a 'defect of the will' which renders one incapable of committing a crime, 4 Bl. Com. 27.
- Cleaned up, also. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's the name of a book, albeit abbreviated. Seems includable to me because it's far from obvious what it means. Worth considering though. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Includability is really not at issue here, since this is an RfV. I would say that the term is now verified. If this were an RfD, I would argue for keeping on the basis that only a very small number of books tend to have a standardized abbreviation used without further explanation in formal documents like judicial opinions. Books of the Bible come to mind. bd2412 T 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't this just an example of the common scholarly practice of having standard abbreviations for journals in their reference lists? Does allowing this entry mean we should allow all journal abbreviations? Some are very well known, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), and some are completely obscure to all but researchers in that field, J. Cyclic Nucleotide Protein Phosphor. Res. (Journal of cyclic nucleotide and protein phosphorylation research). SpinningSpark 09:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- For the most part, these abbreviations are basically SoP. Of course, if "Phil." and "Trans." are the usual abbreviations for "Philosophical" and "Transactions", then we should have these defined at Phil. and Trans.; however, so far as I know, Bl. is not used as an abbreviation for "Blackstone" outside of the context of "Bl. Com." Unless we want to have a definition of Bl. that is limited to its use in Bl. Com., this term will not be discernible from the sum of its parts. bd2412 T 00:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are, of course, numerous journals that are "transactions" of something or other using the abbreviation "Trans." However, it would be quite challenging to find another example of "Phosphor." used as an abbreviation for "phosphorylation" in a journal title which, by your argument, allows "J. Cyclic Nucleotide Protein Phosphor. Res." as an entry. SpinningSpark 13:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it is much easier to discern that "J. Cyclic Nucleotide Protein Phosphor. Res." is the abbreviated title of a work than it is to discern such meaning for a much shorter phrase with no unabbreviated components. bd2412 T 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is an RfV, but, were it an RfD, I'd say Keep. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Since this is, indeed, not an RfD, and since I have provided citations, would anyone object to closing this as verified? bd2412 T 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is an RfV, but, were it an RfD, I'd say Keep. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me that it is much easier to discern that "J. Cyclic Nucleotide Protein Phosphor. Res." is the abbreviated title of a work than it is to discern such meaning for a much shorter phrase with no unabbreviated components. bd2412 T 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are, of course, numerous journals that are "transactions" of something or other using the abbreviation "Trans." However, it would be quite challenging to find another example of "Phosphor." used as an abbreviation for "phosphorylation" in a journal title which, by your argument, allows "J. Cyclic Nucleotide Protein Phosphor. Res." as an entry. SpinningSpark 13:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- For the most part, these abbreviations are basically SoP. Of course, if "Phil." and "Trans." are the usual abbreviations for "Philosophical" and "Transactions", then we should have these defined at Phil. and Trans.; however, so far as I know, Bl. is not used as an abbreviation for "Blackstone" outside of the context of "Bl. Com." Unless we want to have a definition of Bl. that is limited to its use in Bl. Com., this term will not be discernible from the sum of its parts. bd2412 T 00:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't this just an example of the common scholarly practice of having standard abbreviations for journals in their reference lists? Does allowing this entry mean we should allow all journal abbreviations? Some are very well known, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), and some are completely obscure to all but researchers in that field, J. Cyclic Nucleotide Protein Phosphor. Res. (Journal of cyclic nucleotide and protein phosphorylation research). SpinningSpark 09:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Includability is really not at issue here, since this is an RfV. I would say that the term is now verified. If this were an RfD, I would argue for keeping on the basis that only a very small number of books tend to have a standardized abbreviation used without further explanation in formal documents like judicial opinions. Books of the Bible come to mind. bd2412 T 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's the name of a book, albeit abbreviated. Seems includable to me because it's far from obvious what it means. Worth considering though. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was discussing rather than objecting, clear pass IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Striking as closed, then. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)