Talk:Peabody
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The w:Peabody Award. Consensus on including this kind of proper noun. If so, why? If not, why not? DCDuring TALK 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- If we delete this, we really ought to delete Nobel Prize as well. While the latter is much more well known, in linguistic terms they're no different. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also Oscar and Emmy. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at Google Book hits for "the Peabody of", I would say that if anything we're missing senses. DAVilla 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- When we had the attributive use rule it was relatively easy (IMHO) to distinguish between proper nouns that had usage that implied meaning beyond the original referent itself. Opponents, however, deemed it too hard to understand and apply. Any thoughts about some basis for discriminating or are we to duplicate the content of Wikipedia articles, which increasingly have translations/transliterations into multiple languages/scripts? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- "the...of" is an easy wrapper to use for discovery of metaphorical use, the basis of my earlier proposal mentioned above. DAVilla 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- When we had the attributive use rule it was relatively easy (IMHO) to distinguish between proper nouns that had usage that implied meaning beyond the original referent itself. Opponents, however, deemed it too hard to understand and apply. Any thoughts about some basis for discriminating or are we to duplicate the content of Wikipedia articles, which increasingly have translations/transliterations into multiple languages/scripts? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
{{look}}
- Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)