The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- I think we can speedily delete this one, right? Equinox ◑ 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Cited. DAVilla 14:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- This seems like an opportunity to clarify WT:BRAND, at least for my benefit. I have three problems with the citations as they relate to the proper noun in this case:
- I didn't think that we took similes as valid cites.
- It would have certainly simplified many earlier WT:BRAND efforts if we simply allowed all citations of the form "the [Proper noun] of X" constructions as valid citations of [Proper noun].
- It is also unclear to me what the actual meaning "AC/DC" in the citations is. What aspect of the band is being referred to?
- -- DCDuring TALK 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- You seem very confused. On the other hand, this response is six weeks late, but for clarity:
- 1. Sorry, we do. WT:BRAND has two explicit instances of simile. Metaphor is only a proposed criterion for specific entities.
- 2. These citations are not valid under WT:BRAND merely because they follow that pattern. The pattern is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet WT:BRAND. I chose those quotations because they were the strongest in allowing a specific entity. As you know we don't have criteria for that yet, so strong quotations will avoid having to cite again in the future.
- For instance, the last cite is valid because it does not indicate at all what AC/DC is in the preceding and surrounding text. On the other hand, I'm realizing I didn't check that some of the others weren't written about the type of "product" (music?) in general, so they may not work in that regard.
- 3. The less clear the meaning, the stronger the case for passing WT:BRAND. I really don't care to cite what AC/DC actually means because we all already know that. DAVilla 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the 1991 and 2009 citations are good; I am less certain that the 1999 and 2006 citations (which are clearly discussing musical artists) are valid. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- My assessment is that the sense needs one more BRAND-meeting citation (to go with the 1991 and 2009 ones) to meet BRAND CFI. I welcome other assessments. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- RFV-failed (has only two citations that meet BRAND CFI). - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)