Talk:sides reversed is
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV in topic sides reversed is
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.
"Used to form palindromes." Equinox ◑ 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely attestable, plays a role in communication not necessarily apparent from its components (I certainly didn't realise straight away that it was a palindromic phrase). I've given it a slightly better def. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no test case or criterion that says it must be kept, but it's too good to lose :) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do we generally want to include all smart palindromes in all languages? To begin with, Emme liene vätyksiä lemmen, emme läiskytä, veneilemme is Finnish for "We aren't slobs of love, we don't splash, we are boating". If you are asked for the price of producing a new palindrome, you might answer that you do it Alle satasella, i.e. "for less than a hundred". I have about 2,000 more to go. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to keep every soppish palindrome in every language, but this one serves a special purpose in (admittedly rare) palindromic discourse. I will openly admit that I have no winning arguments for it - but I'm an inclusionist at heart. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do we generally want to include all smart palindromes in all languages? To begin with, Emme liene vätyksiä lemmen, emme läiskytä, veneilemme is Finnish for "We aren't slobs of love, we don't splash, we are boating". If you are asked for the price of producing a new palindrome, you might answer that you do it Alle satasella, i.e. "for less than a hundred". I have about 2,000 more to go. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It should be kept because it’s a template, not because it’s a palindrome. We shouldn’t and won’t include palindromes using it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Amusing as it is, I see no criterion under which this could be kept, so delete. -- Liliana • 11:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to think it does convey some meaning, so should be kept, but reworded. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Send to RFV, if people actually use it like that then keep, I guess. Ƿidsiþ 08:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Google book search has quite a few hits (not counting accidental ones), but they all seem to be mentions. Actually, I'm not sure how any usage could be other than a mention. So, delete, or remove elsewhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Banish it to Appendix:Palindromic_phrases Chuck Entz (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- How about if we redefined it to "used to indicate a pair of semordnilaps" or something similar? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)