Talk:write once, run anywhere

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

RFD disussion[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.

A commercial slogan. (Not dictionary material) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And I second Equinox's comment up at #Video Object. --WikiTiki89 09:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this would be like having finger licking good because of KFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a good example: see [1] and finger-lickin' good. In the 18th and 19th centuries, one would use allusions to Greek and Roman mythology, since that was something known to all educated people. Nowadays, advertising slogans have at least partly taken their place as common cultural references. I would say that when something is used in both rock-climbing and porn contexts, it's definitely escaped into the wild. I'm not so sure this one is to that point yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete as a slogan, though compare WORM (write once read many times) — I expect they based it on that. Equinox ◑ 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WORA (its acronym/initialism) isn't nominated, mind you. And I suspect we wouldn't keep write once read many times if we had it! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of WORA is suggestive that it is idiomatic. It would hardly be unusual that a slogan became part of the lexicon. This was apparently introduced by Sun in since 1995, which gives plenty of time for the lexicalization. Commercial origin does not forever mark something as unincludable. BTW, I wonder whether anyone has noted the WORA feature of, say, the printed word or HTML, or.... DCDuring TALK 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? So they Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is idiomatic because of the existence of RSPCA, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proper nouns have their own considerations (Remember "individual entities").
Write once run anywhere is used as an adjective in contexts other than ads, about things other than Java: "One of the most important reasons to use a virtual machine is that the code is “write once, run anywhere”." (from bgc). Keep DCDuring TALK 13:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, unless I'm missing something it means [[write]] [[once]], [[run]] [[anywhere]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That definition is not substitutable into its adjective usage, being bare-verb clauses. A proper definition might be something like "(of a computer application or a programming language) Having the characteristic that the same code can be run without change on any device equipped with suitable software." Perhaps you can come up with something that makes the SoPitude more apparent. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a "decide once, apply many times" case but it seems it's a "decide many times, and never apply" case. --WikiTiki89 13:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think we could and should have more easy-to-apply criteria. The biggest simplification was WT:COALMINE, which has not been a complete success. We end up just trying to apply principles, sometimes in novel ways, to each individual case and then attempt to find a few cases that are sufficiently similar to apply the precedent too. It is a kind of common-law system, with few statutes. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, problem with this is that it is a slogan - I don't know if we allow slogans. AFAIC understand the entry contains no examples/cites that suggest its usage other than for advertising. No adjective usex. But if there were any such thing and if the def were modified, we might keep it since we have what you see is what you get (computing sense). --biblbroksдискашн 21:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it only a slogan? We are not so anti-commercial that, once words have been used as a commercial slogan, that configuration of words is forever verba non grata here. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DCDuring, the definition isn't backing you up! The definition says it's a slogan and nothing more. If there's a more widespread meaning feel free to add it. As for adjectival or adverbial use, any chance of some evidence? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that the norm for this discussion was assertion without evidence, based on prevailing practice of all participants. Where is the evidence that this is only used as a slogan?
I view these RfDs and RfVs as often providing the opportunity to convert a bad entry into a good one, rather than exclusively a legalistic exercise. Perhaps I have missed something that mandates exclusively legalistic use of these forums. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question is do you have evidence to back up what you say? You're asking us not to comment on this entry, but a hypothetical future version of it. What's your objection to providing evidence? You're normally all for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of people providing evidence for their assertions, but I see no reason to do so in a discussion where the call for evidence is unmatched by the provision of evidence. Also, there's no rush. I can add an entry at any time with evidence, if I would like. We already have lots of coverage of computing terms, so missing one like this, whether or not it meets CFI, is not that important. And we have [[WORA]], which is used more frequently and would be found by search. It might even be a good precedent to have this deleted even though it might meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't meet CFI because it is SOP. --WikiTiki89 12:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to remove advertising. Suggest RFV for proof of genericism. DAVilla 06:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved to RFV -- Liliana • 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfV May 2013[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.

write once, run anywhere[edit]

From RFD -- Liliana • 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it; this is well attested, and no one in the RFD discussion wrote "move to RFV" or anything similar. Why is this here? —RuakhTALK 06:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the complete RfV discussion, now visible, at Talk:write once, run anywhere. DAVilla suggested that it be RfVed "for genericism". DCDuring TALK 15:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for fixing it. —RuakhTALK 05:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


RFV discussion: May–September 2013[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

From RFD -- Liliana • 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it; this is well attested, and no one in the RFD discussion wrote "move to RFV" or anything similar. Why is this here? —RuakhTALK 06:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the complete RfV discussion, now visible, at Talk:write once, run anywhere. DAVilla suggested that it be RfVed "for genericism". DCDuring TALK 15:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for fixing it. —RuakhTALK 05:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:write_once,_run_anywhere&oldid=31614787"