Talk:MiniDisc

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


MiniDisc

Needs to meet brand name standards. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Note there is a lower-case minidisc entry as well. Equinox 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That might even meet "widespread use" as the standards are lower for the genericized word, which may or may not be derived from the brand name. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

moved to RFV -- Liliana 11:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Moved from RFD. This is a trademark and so needs to meet WT:BRAND standards. -- Liliana 11:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Hope this is OK. — Xavier, 02:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I only like the Konrath quotation. The first use is actually on page 105, but it's also a bit ambiguous. Shipside might also be okay, but Ollila indicates it's a recording device. None of the others are even close, in my opinion. DAVilla 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get it. I have the feeling you are only discussing sense #3. For the record, sense #1 and #2 were the only ones that were originally challenged by this RFV. Sense #3 was added by me because I found usages (as a device) that wasn't matching #1 and #2.
Anyway, I see no problem discussing sense #3 here. You say that Ollila uses the word as a recording device. I agree. But, as the other two citations, it matches the definition I gave for sense #3: "A MiniDisc player or recorder". So, where is the problem exactly with sense #3? And what about senses #1 and #2 that were originally submitted for verification? — Xavier, 09:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know the third sense wasn't challenged (or perhaps I should say, that it hasn't been yet). Sorry, I had just assumed it was.
Yes, I read the quotes for all three. For those first two definitions as well, my opinion is that the quotations don't meet CFI. The Ollila excerpt is correctly categorized but doesn't count as one of three needed citations that use the term without clearly indicating what the product is, per WT:BRAND. DAVilla 21:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

{{look}}

So... pass? fail? (Since I don't particularly care if this passes or fails, I'll mark it as "kept" in a week or two if no-one bothers to mark it as actually "passed" or "failed" first.) - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)