OK, so most of us are probably familiar with this (overrated, if you ask me) game. Has it crept in to the English language enough? Probably...worth a discussion anyway. --Keene 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
weak keep. I think this one has crept into the lexicon of the average person. --EncycloPetey 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord, it's a popularity contest now? Not a single one of those "popular culture" (taking a very liberal definition of culture, I see) listings, uses the brand-name attributively. Not one. Those are product mentions. In advertising, those are called product endorsements and are particularly effective because it is not clear which ones Hasbro is paying for, for the mention. DELETE. --Connel MacKenzie 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's much worse than that. Most of the listings aren't even mentions. They're product placements only, and the name itself, if it is even displayed, is never spoken by any of the characters.
But if you don't like popular culture like, you know, the low class stuff that Shakespeare was writing in his day to appease those commoner crowds, then you're welcome to do a Google book search. There are more than seventy hits for "play Twister" and nearly twice as many for the even narrower phrase "game of Twister". Hasbro must have some pretty deep pockets!
As to your claim of no attributive use, I don't understand it at all. Was that a reflexive reply, or did you just miss the sole quotation on the page? I mean, there is only one quotation there, and it uses the word attributively in both cases, "Twister suits" and "Twister mat". DAVilla 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What aspect of the game "Twister" is that quote attributing to the suit(s)? What attribute is being alluded to? None. It is simply naming a direct object. I would not object to the object being named in Wiktionary, if it wasn't promotional. But very plainly, it is promotional. That is why I think it should be deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What would that be, the look of the suit, I guess? Does everything have to be spelled out to such detail with you? It's attributive in the grammatical sense, but now I wonder if you are familiar with that. A direct object? WTF are you talking about? DAVilla 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that our definition for attributive lacks the correct definition for the adjective, e.g. from Webster's 1913. If you consider attribution to mean "anything that is used as an adjective" then I can understand why we have been talking right past each other. --Connel MacKenzie 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'm beginning to understand you. Time to study up. Any good general references of knowledge you might suggest? Preferably one that's free, online, and if I disagree with I can edit? :-P DAVilla 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about Webster's. In linguistics, attributive seems to mean only that the word is part of the noun phrase, in contrast especially to predicative. DAVilla 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep, has entered the lexicon of the average person, as demonstrated by the abundance of quotations out-of-context. Kappa 05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand that. If someone mentions the game "Twister" while not playing the game "Twister," it is then out of context? Or did I read what you wrote, incorrectly? --Connel MacKenzie 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Out-of-context means no context is provided within the text, not the situation, to indicate meaning. Are you through twisting words for today? DAVilla 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for putting a smile on my face, with that pun. This point I shall concede. --Connel MacKenzie 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
keep. Commonly used without explanation of what it is - "Let's play Twister" is used in exactly the same way as "Let's play dominoes" or "Let's play poker". You are expected to know what Twister/dominoes/poker is, if you don't then you can look the word up in a dictionary. Thryduulf 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
This survived RfD, but it has but one citation. Needs some kind of attributive use. DCDuringHoliday Greetings! 12:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
How about a book title?: When Did My Life Become a Game of Twister?, Mary Pierce, Zondervan, 2007  - Pingku 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.—msh210℠ 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Does not seem to meet the attestation standard for brand/product names. DCDuringTALK 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry deleted; but anyone who'd like to add valid citations to meet the brand-name standard, let me know and I can restore it so you don't have to start from scratch. —RuakhTALK 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Ruakh, after you deleted it, would you kindly add the meaning in Citations:Twister, so that one knows what one is looking for (and the readers of the Citations become enlightened as well)? I can not deduce the meaning from these two citations and can not see the history either. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)