This is not a context label. --EncycloPetey 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the terms 'context' is a bit restrictive - transitive and intransitive aren't contexts either, they give useful, grammatical information about the word/term. This seems a lot less easy to justify, probably delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Agreed that it is not a context label, but is every bit as justified as "transitive"/"intransitive", "passive", and a host of others. This seems like something worth keeping in the contag space. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Primary difference (IMO) transitive is an adjective, this is a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Re:Atelaes: "Transitive" is a subclass of verbs, contrasted with "Intransitive". What is "simile" a subclass of? What is its contrasting state? A simile can be an Adjective, Clause, Phrase, or Sentence, so this is not grammatical context like the other items you mention, which designate a subclass of a particular POS. --EncycloPetey 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
We have mixed grammatical labels together with restricted-usage (wt: “context”) labels, because they look the same in most dictionaries. I think this is one of the former. —MichaelZ. 2010-05-15 22:43 z
I think we have three classes of legitimate tags: grammatical (mostly complement information), situational context (register, geography, special realm), and semantic/grammatical restrictions (eg, "of a plant or insect"). Is the last to be considered a type of grammatical restriction? It might be nice to have some typographic differentiation between/among classes of tags. DCDuringTALK 00:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The last is usually unique, so it makes sense to write it in the definition, instead of confusing everyone by adding a class of label. —MichaelZ. 2010-05-16 06:58 z
Then we have another substantial clean-up job. DCDuringTALK 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Is "simile" a characteristic of a sense of is it the characteristic of a PoS (or of an L2 or Etymology or Pronunciation n) header? In English by most definitions a simile is marked by the presence of "like" or "as". In the absence of such a marker wouldn't we call it a metaphor (which could be sense-level)?
If "simile" is not ever sense-level in any language, then we need not have the context tag. But, unless that can be shown, Keep. DCDuringTALK 00:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Make that four classes. We have rhetorical-device context labels: metaphor, simile. We could probably use others: hyperbole, metonymy, and others applicable to proverbs.
These are categories of terms or phrases. Why do they need labels? Simile, at least, doesn't seem like it would ever be applied to one sense of a term but not another. Metonymy seems like etymological info, or part of a definition. —MichaelZ. 2010-05-16 06:58 z
If we delete this, where in entries do we explain that they are similes? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Either in Usage notes, or just with example quotations and a category placement. Possibly an appendix. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In English, the presence of "like", "as", or "than" in a phrase is required and that would seem to mean that simile-hood is a characteristic of an entry not a sense. An entry can be marked by a category and does not necessarily require a sense-level marker.
Can anyone identify any language for which that is not true? (sufficient to Keep)
Is it true in all languages that "simile" is not sense-specific? (necessary to Delete)