Talk:Bosman ruling

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

RFD discussion: August–September 2016[edit]

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Name of a court decision. Not dictionary material. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, not sure. The first comparable thing I thought of was Anton Piller order, but that is a countable type of thing (and so are e.g. Elvis sandwich and Kanye glasses), whereas this is one specific historical ruling. Equinox ◑ 12:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recently considered adding entries for Roe, Plessy and other major US court cases that are often mentioned by only one word in sentences about e.g. women dying "pre-Roe" / "before Roe", on the basis that such sentences are opaque without an understanding of what "Roe" means. However, I decided against it because even in cases where the word wasn't followed by "ruling" or "case" or "decision" to make clear that it was a ruling, it was almost always still italicized (unless the book was e.g. typewritten and had no italics at all), another way of making clear that it was the name of a thing that might need to be looked up in an encyclopedia of books etc rather than in a dictionary that appropriately covers Roe (and should cover Plessy) only as a surname. Here, I think "ruling" makes clear that this is a court or other body's ruling that should be looked up in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. So, delete. "Bosman transfer" has a better claim to being idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or even just "Bosman" - the phrase "on a Bosman" is in use, e.g. [1][2]. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bosman may or may not merit an entry but we shouldn't decide about this entry based on that one. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of usages of this term. We should keep it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, delete: discussing "the Bosman ruling" seems like talking about "the Johnson book" or "the Smith paper", a particular textbook etc. known from more or less immediate context. Equinox ◑ 09:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me to be like Chilcot enquiry (WP) where of course the person's name isn't going to tell you anything about what it is. But it's not an English idiom. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. bd2412 T 19:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosman_ruling&oldid=49608587"