Talk:brick wall

RfD: January-March 2015

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.

---

rfd-sense: A wall made of bricks. Redundant to {{&lit|brick|wall}} DCDuring TALK 17:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the definition for which it was introduced has now been improved, so this sense is redundant. Dbfirs 19:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. We have stone wall. We also have fried egg. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The senses at stone wall and fried egg are not redundant to other senses in their entries. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete: that's what I was about to point out. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep sense 2, useful for translations. Maybe sense 1 should be removed. Donnanz (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Donnanz: The translation-target rationale is not part of WT:CFI. There is nothing to prevent the creation of entries for translations of brick + wall that are includable as CFI-meeting in their own language.

There is indeed also nothing other than lack of willing and able volunteers preventing the creation of entries for the vast number of redlinked translations at entries that have translation tables. Once we have made more progress in that regard I might find the translation-target rationale worth considering. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As for translation target not being part of CFI and whether it matters, see Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't really add anything to DP's comment, except reiterate that potential translation targets should be kept. Let's leave it at that. Donnanz (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why can't we eliminate sense two and then reword the first section of the translation table to indicate that it contains translations of the &lit usage? bd2412 T 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, sort of. Maybe I just mean that an actual definition is better than the &lit template. This sense is, at any rate, in the OED. It was formerly often spelled as a single word, so there are also COALMINE arguments (but not sure whether that's relevant for individual senses). Ƿidsiþ 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Both "see brick,‎ wall" and "a wall made of bricks"?

You can't have both of these, it's daft. Pick your favourite and dump the other one.

1. Used other than as an idiom: see brick,‎ wall.
2. A wall made of bricks.

Siuenti (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've combined them, pace the thread above this one. - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)