Talk:class of
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
= (deprecated template usage) class + (deprecated template usage) of. NISoP. DCDuring TALK 05:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not even correct, the noun is class, class of isn't a noun in itself, just a noun followed by a preposition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I thought that was the only problem, I could have changed "Noun" to "Phrase" (in our L2 sense). By the logic of those who favor ambiguous encoding as a rationale for inclusion, perhaps we should have this because, after all, how would someone know that the right preposition after "class" was "of", rather than "for", "at", or "in" or that one doesn't say "1969's class". Of course, it is not at all clear why a user would look this up rather than the constituent words or why a usage example including "class of" in the entry for class isn't sufficient, indeed, better than sufficient. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Probably better as an example. DAVilla 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- If I thought that was the only problem, I could have changed "Noun" to "Phrase" (in our L2 sense). By the logic of those who favor ambiguous encoding as a rationale for inclusion, perhaps we should have this because, after all, how would someone know that the right preposition after "class" was "of", rather than "for", "at", or "in" or that one doesn't say "1969's class". Of course, it is not at all clear why a user would look this up rather than the constituent words or why a usage example including "class of" in the entry for class isn't sufficient, indeed, better than sufficient. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think this is suitable enough for inclusion. There are two very strong senses for this: the "class" that encompasses or groups several objects together, or the academic sense. It seems that therefore these sense are easily distinguishable enough that they do not warrant a standalone entry with another word. TeleComNasSprVen 04:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
RFD failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)