Talk:technical

At the end of this entry, one can read the following text:

→"[...]; as, the words of an indictment must be technical. --w:Blackstone."

which was taken from ARTFL Project: Webster Dictionary, 1913. Is it a quotation from that Mr. Blackstone? If it is, it should be highlighted as an example of use. Piolinfax 09:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

additional adj sense?[edit]

I think this word can also mean "good at computers/technology", e.g. "Don't ask me about your computer, I'm not technical or anything." ---> Tooironic 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done We have this now: "Technically-minded; adept with science and technology". Equinox ◑ 05:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tea room discussion[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

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.

mechanical

technical

I think we're missing a definition here. When people say they are (or aren't) "mechanical" they don't mean they are made of mechanical parts, but that they are (or aren't) good with machinery, and similarly with "technical". I've been trying for a day or so and cannot come up with a decent way of phrasing a defintion, other than it should probably start with {{context|of a person}}. Thryduulf 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that sense and some others to mechanical, and split the pre-existing sense into two. (I haven't touched technical.)—msh210℠ 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least one missing meaning[edit]

To be perfectly honest I think this entry is pretty poor. One thing I see missing is "a technical routine", for example a technical gymnastics routine, or a technical juggling routine. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I think the first definition, copied verbatim from Century 1911, is an embarrassment.

For something missing, see this citation for a sense that is common in climbing and probably in the various 'extreme" sports:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.

RFV discussion: September 2013–March 2014[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

technical

"(slang) A secretarial way of saying "specific"." Equinox ◑ 19:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any sense to me. I am struggling to see how this could be used;

"Bring me the file on Jones please."

"Which technical Jones do you want?"

"Shall I arrange the meeting for a technical time?"

Don't really seem to work. Spinning Spark 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our whole set of words revolving around technical needs reworking. It looks to me like they're trying, in a lame sort of way, to deal with examples like "don't be so technical", that deal with the idea of technicalities as the kind of things nitpickers seize on. Only technically has a sense for it, while technical loads too much into the first definition and the other entries just keep leading back to it without explaining anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other common phases: "to be a little more technical," "technically speaking," "if you want to get technical about it," ... BB12 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of them usually mean "specific" though, and they are not particularly limited to secretaries. Spinning Spark 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MWOnline has six senses, a total of ten definitions for technical. RHU has eleven. Even Collins and WNW have six. So we should look to add at least one sense that covers what might have been intended, however badly worded and erroneously restricted it may be.

Perhaps something like: "Marked by or derived from a strict, especially overly strict, interpretation of rules or of wording." Is that close to what BB and Chuck's examples need?

Another sense more related "specific" might be: "marked by or related to specialization", as in technical language. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: our first definition is the same as that from Webster 1913. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion: August 2017–February 2021[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

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.

~~technical~~

Definition one is copied verbatim from Century 1911:

Of or pertaining to the useful or mechanic arts, or to any academic, legal, science, engineering, business, or the like terminology with specific and precise meaning or (frequently, as a degree of distinction) shades of meaning; specially appropriate to any art, science or engineering field, or business

The words of an indictment must be technical.

I am too tired to deal with this now, but it should not remain in this state. Other parts of the entry have wording problems (dated, etc.) as well. DCDuring (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring I changed it, it's not perfect but hopefully better. W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring Can the {{rfc}} be removed? W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled it back. That may be the primary definition in Urban Dictionary or in your idiolect, but certainly not in that of most others. The "improvement" was shorter, but didn't provide the basic definition. See “technical”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. for the basic definition, usually the first shown, in the opinions of professional lexicographers. DCDuring (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring I just thought of one explanation that would explain everything: you thought I had only changed the first sense and overlooked the other two senses and example. In that case your revert is perfectly understandable. If this is what happened, you can revert the revert (hmm..) and ignore what I said above. W3ird N3rd (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, the added definitions, like the noun "jargon" as a definition for the adjective technical, scared me even more. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okilly-dokilly, thanks for the clarification. W3ird N3rd (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, RFC template no longer present. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 21:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]