Talk:aviation incident
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Um, aviation + incident? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- This sheds some light on aviation accident. We didn't trouble to investigate whether the terms have regulatory meanings assigned by, say, the NTSB. If they are followed, they should not be/have been deleted. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- If something has a definition supplied by the government, that doesn't mean that we should have that definition. Standards of identity we've agreed (and I agree) we should have (and we do), but those are in use on labels, on menus, and/or in advertisements. A term that the National Transportation Safety Board uses in its reports does not necessarily similarly see use, and a citation showing it does would have to be independent of the defining document (so at least not paraphrasing an NTSB report) and clearly in the sense provided (and not merely meaning, in this case, an incident related to aviation). Sure, move it to RFV, but good luck.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It may be that the terms "incident" and "accident" are what have the regulatory definitions. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds fair enough (I was torn between the two). However I don't think she should keep so-called technical terms listed in specialist dictionaries when they are in fact the sum of their parts. Specialist dictionaries often have these terms to give more detailed information about them, for example in juggling there's the blind catch - it is of course, any catch that's blind. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've also observed what you have about specialized glossaries. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds fair enough (I was torn between the two). However I don't think she should keep so-called technical terms listed in specialist dictionaries when they are in fact the sum of their parts. Specialist dictionaries often have these terms to give more detailed information about them, for example in juggling there's the blind catch - it is of course, any catch that's blind. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just because a term is included in a glossary (official, governmental, or otherwise) does not mean it is includable per Wiktionary's criteria. After all, in many cases, the whole purpose of a glossary is to confirm the specific definitions of terms in specialised contexts, not define the meanings of words or phrases on a universal level. Delete this one. ---> Tooironic 22:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
deleted. -- Prince Kassad 12:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)