Talk:financial institution

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion discussion[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

financial institution[edit]

Delete. Obvious sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out the heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

financial service[edit]

SOP. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious sum of parts. --Dmol (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out the heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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.

financial institution [edit]

Request to 'undelete'. Deleted as sum-of-parts. In my opinion, its full and exact meaning acannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Also we already have acquiring financial institution, acquiring financial institutions, financial conglomerate, etc. Likewise covered by multiple dictionaries - see https://www.onelook.com/?w=financial+institution&ls=a. --Jklamo (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. Basically a set phrase. bd2412 T 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Not clear what it means...many institutions are heavily involved in finance in one way or another, but only some of them are "financial institutions". Also there are lemmings - Cambridge, Macquarie Dict., Webs. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia starts by giving a much broader definition than these lemmings (but then, curiously, effectively narrows it to “bank”, even as it has an article Non-bank financial institution). Investopedia also has a much laxer definition. This is considered a sufficiently authoritative source that at least one bank links to it. It is not particularly hard to find uses of the term “financial institution” that are outside the scope of the narrow lemming definition (e.g. here). The recently proposed draft bill [”Keep Big Tech Out Of Finance Act“] says “A large platform utility may not be, and may not be affiliated with any person that is, a financial institution”, but strangely without defining the term. Presumably it would be interpreted as the definition given in US Code Title 15 § 6809, which is very broad again (essentially: any institution the business of which is engaging in activities that are financial in nature). If the lemma is restored with the narrow sense as a definition, we will also need a broad (basically {{&lit}}) sense.  --Lambiam 16:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to view the Wiktionary definition as it was before it was deleted? Mihia (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition was "[a]n institution, such as a bank, insurance company or fund, that provides financial services for its clients or members". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can anyone retrieve that definition (if so, how), or are you able to do it only because you have a special privilege? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin can see the full history of deleted pages. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DTLHS: ... and by implication non-Admins have no way to retrieve deleted entries ... is that what you mean? Mihia (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can certainly ask an administrator. DTLHS (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The definition that was deleted is very much sum-of-parts. It is slightly less general than the definition in US Code Title 15 § 6809, in which the financial activities of the institution need not be “services for its clients or members”. It is much more general than the definitions of several financial dictionaries, in which these services are, specifically, “collecting funds from the public and/or other organisations with the intention of investing these funds into financial assets” (e.g. ABC Accounting Dictionary), or serving “as a channel between savers and borrowers of funds” (BusinessDictionary). Unless we can find three actual uses that count as attestations in which the term is used in this narrow sense, we should (IMO) not include it as a separate sense (just as we would not give “a hoofed mammal, of the genus Equus, used to draw a coach” as a separate sense of horse). Then we are left with the SoP sense that was rightly deleted.  --Lambiam 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. In Talk:financial institution, I voted to keep. It still is not obvious to me that money is not a financial institution and that the practice of lending is not a financial institution, or the practice of lending on interest. "Money" would be a financial institution under a different sense of "institution", the one used in the phrase "the institution of marrigage". “financial institution”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. found lemmings (WT:LEMMING). I still think that the reader is better off with out having the entry. I still think that a label "sum of parts" or a usage note to the effect of "This term can be considered to be a sum of parts" would not harm. The notes made above by Lambiam are alone interesting material to read for the user of a dictionary, a tool that helps reader to engage in clarification of ideas, disambiguation of terms, research into possible meanings and uses of terms and related intellectually demanding activities usually undertaken by highly paid professionals. The interesting notes and facts collected by Lambiam will end up on the entry talk page anyway; now we need an entry for the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Money clearly is a financial institution, in that it's a thing that was instituted and belongs to finance. It's not the commonest usage of that phrase, but certainly that would work. I still feel this is SoP: schools, universities and colleges are educational institutions, obviously, but so is e.g. the subject of English Literature. Don't undelete. Equinox ◑ 21:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then the entry is actually even more useful in disambiguating the phrase than I thought. It captures lexical knowledge users of the language acquire: that the phrase "financial institution" is nearly always used in reference to organizations although it might as well be plausibly used to refer to the other kinds of institutions such as money. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A water pitcher isn't someone/something that throws water nor is it made out of water, and pigeon droppings aren't instances of allowing pigeons(birds or people that have been duped) to fall. That doesn't mean it requires a dictionary entry (which has nothing to do with books coming into a place) to figure out the meaning of the phrases (which has nothing to do with arithmetic averages or music). The mere existence of multiple senses for a word does not make all phrases using it idiomatic. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero plausibility that "water pitcher" could be someone to throw water. What matters is how easy it is for the reader to perform the disambiguation of possible senses without help of the dictionary. My point is that the entry helps avoid an actual confusion on part of the language users, maybe non-native speakers. And lemmings seem to agree (M-W[1], dictionary.cambridge.org[2]), or have a different reason for keeping. I admit that the phrase may still be a sum of parts, but that is not the only thing that matters. On another note, the fact that the phrase is subject to various operational definitions is also of note; a quote: 'The High Court has confirmed it will adopt a broad definition of a “financial institution” for the purposes of the transferability provisions [...]'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't undelete. Canonicalization (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count 4 bold undeletes including the nom and 2 bold against; that would be a borderline consensus to undelete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per BD2412. John Cross (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as a set phrase and lemming. Imetsia (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Sorry I missed this discussion earlier. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:financial_institution&oldid=61162761"