Talk:180

RFD discussion

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.

---

Rfd-redundant: The exact opposite. Previous sense is (figuratively, by extension) A complete change of direction or opinion.

I don't think we need two figurative senses for this, if the previous sense is inadequate, can we not improve it? As for the definition itself, it strikes me as being wrong! Mature is the exact opposite of immature, but one cannot say that mature is the 180 of immature. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep They are obviously not the same. All "change" is not "opposite". The word is in widespread use in both senses. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Unless we can verify a use of this where the "change" is not "opposite" or anywhere close to "opposite". --WikiTiki89 14:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring, as far as I can see, they are not the same as the first sense is real, and the second sense is not (cf. "mature is the 180 of immature" above). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep per DCD. If you don't think it's real, then RFV it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what it means? That might mean skipping the RFV. I will quote "mature is the 180 of immature" a third time in the hope that someone can answer it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I could easily imagine someone saying "mature is the 180 of immature". But, "mature is a complete change of direction or opinion of immature" makes just as much sense as "mature is the exact opposite of immature". And that is why I think they are the same sense. (Metaknowledge: As far as I know, discussions of merging senses are usually RFD and not RFV.) --WikiTiki89 08:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep or Merge senses. I've found a few Google books hits where "exact opposite" makes sense, but not "change in direction".

Also, knowing the mistakes I'd made then, I did a complete 180 of everything I'd done before not involving common courtesy.

Aaron's side was wealthy and white; hers was almost the complete 180 of that.

So the strength of what we're doing today at the corporate level — almost a complete 180 to where we were nine years ago — was primarily driven by a recognition of a failure in H-P to take advantage of our strengths across the different business units.

All of these seem to me like uses of the opposite sense (the HP one I'll admit is iffy). If the two senses are too similar, there's nothing wrong with merging them, of course; we could have "a complete change of direction; the exact opposite". Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Smurray. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I assume the people voting keep know (or think they know) what this means, could someone tell me? I have no problems RFV'ing on the grounds it's incomprehensible hence uncitable, but assuming keepers think this is comprehensible, can't someone just tell me therefore saving a listing on RFV, one of the biggest pages on this wiki? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC is a much shorter page. RfC or a variant thereof specifically for definition problems rather than formatting is probably the right place for this.

A problem with the definitions is that not all "opposites" or "changes" are 180s. Positions and directions are. The challenged definition is simply not limited enough. There is good reason to keep it because the usage is closer to the literal definition (which also BTW normally does not apply in the vertical plane). In the literal usage it is not necessary to have a protractor to determiner whether the turn was 180 rather than 160 degrees. Similarly with the "opposite" figurative senses, though negation can make it little easier to apply "exactly". But it is necessary for that sense to apply for the positions or courses to map onto such a directional/positional scheme. The usage in which relative position or direction is not so simple as opposition/negation is might justify a separate sense IMO. I think usage like "The designer's choice of orange rather than peuce was a complete 180 from the dominant trend" would not fit the "opposite" sense: "not orange" and "the opposite of orange" are not acceptable definitions of peuce. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But is it the peuce that was opposited/negated or the dominant trend of having peuce as a choice? And why doesn't the literal definition normally apply in the vertical plane: up(ward) is a 180 of down(ward), or am I missing something? Anyway, I'm inclined to keep both senses separate since "the exact opposite" doesn't imply any movement as "a complete change of direction or opinion" does. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 17:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Not every negation is an opposition.
2. Try to find usage of 180, literal sense, in the vertical plane.
3. No sense of this, literal or figurative, should require motion - or all should (6 definitions), subject to attestation. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1. But this one could be both I think: negation of the dominant trend by making it less dominant and so negating its dominance? Since we are already talking about designers, their choices (usually conveying some message) and people discussing such choices. Although this exact phrasing perhaps fails as a negation since you don't make a negation from something but of something, right? Anyway I am not advocating the inclusion of any such wording as "negation" or "negative" is.
2. Couldn't the one presented at [[180]] be one such example: "He did a 180 off the diving board."?
3. Sorry, I fail to grasp what 6 definitions/senses was referred to. There are the three defs in the entry but I don't understand where and how the other three were mentioned. As for the defs being subject to attestation, the result of it could be a mixed group: some implying motion and some not. Yes? --biblbroks_{дискашн} 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I created this because the existing senses didn't seem to cover a usage I was familiar with. I should have spent more time on the wording of the definition: to start with, it's not "The exact opposite". Even so, there's a distinction: the other senses are for a turn or a change in direction, while this one is more of a state: the result of the turn or change. It's like the distinction between reverse and reversal Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And the example for the challenged sense is also more of a state. I wouldn't say it is necessarily the result of a change, except if in some Heraclitian manner observing everything as continuous processes. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to a rewording instead of following through with this rfd debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but do the examples usually come from real-life communication like they're quotes or paraphrasings, or some portion of it are made up? --biblbroks_{дискашн} 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When there is this kind of controversy, it is a good idea to have real-world citations. If one is trying to illustrate a grammatical point in a usage example a the point can be lost in the extraneous parts of a real citation. DCDuring TALK 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Chuck and Biblbroks: I think that the literal sense, the figurative "opposite" sense, and the figurative "change" sense each can apply to either a state or a movement. I think I could demonstrate this if I had to. That is why I said I thought we would need a static and dynamic sense for each of the senses as I have differentiated them, which would yield six senses, which certainly is excessive. It is, after all, not obvious that we should even have three. The use of the word "or" in the definitions twice and 'especially' once for "complete opposite" in the figurative sense should address the sense proliferation concern. DCDuring TALK 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 03:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)