Talk:Hacker
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFD discussion: August–October 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
sense "ellipsis of Hacker Way". Hacker Way should not be included, even less so a short form of it. – Jberkel 16:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, delete. I looked in vain for any places named Hacker. DonnanZ (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hacker Way comes up immediately if you look at GoogleMaps, it’s the HQ of FaceBook (and Instagram) and it’s quite widely referred to online, so I wouldn’t object if someone were to create that as an entry. As for ‘Hacker’ itself though, delete. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why would we want "Hacker Way"? – Jberkel 20:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t particularly but it would be consistent with our policies if it were created (I’ve no intention of doing so, though). Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to WT:CFI, names of streets can only be included if there's attested figurative use. Here it's the other way round, the place name seems to be a nod to “[doing things] the hacker way”. – Jberkel 22:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, Hacker Way isn't needed, but I'm thinking of adding an entry for Fosse Way, only to find fosseway taken from Webster 1913, which seems to have been mangled, with a plural added. Help! DonnanZ (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see your problem and I misinterpreted the policy wrt ‘Hacker Way’. Would the eligibility of ‘The Fosse Way’ depend on whether the word ‘fosseway’ for a Roman road is a generalisation of ‘The Fosse Way’ or directly from the Latin ‘fossa’ (ditch)? Do we know which of these possibilities is the correct one? Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Examining the Webster entry used for fosseway again, it was intended by Webster to be a proper noun, Fosseway. I'll give the page's creator, @Equinox, a ping. DonnanZ (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see you’ve created Fosse Way, which is probably the correct move. As far as fosseway is concerned, there are surely more than enough hits on GoogleBooks for ‘a fosseway’ and ‘fosseways’ to justify that entry too, though I fully agree with your point about the Webster entry being intended as a proper noun. Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Examining the Webster entry used for fosseway again, it was intended by Webster to be a proper noun, Fosseway. I'll give the page's creator, @Equinox, a ping. DonnanZ (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see your problem and I misinterpreted the policy wrt ‘Hacker Way’. Would the eligibility of ‘The Fosse Way’ depend on whether the word ‘fosseway’ for a Roman road is a generalisation of ‘The Fosse Way’ or directly from the Latin ‘fossa’ (ditch)? Do we know which of these possibilities is the correct one? Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t particularly but it would be consistent with our policies if it were created (I’ve no intention of doing so, though). Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why would we want "Hacker Way"? – Jberkel 20:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hacker Way comes up immediately if you look at GoogleMaps, it’s the HQ of FaceBook (and Instagram) and it’s quite widely referred to online, so I wouldn’t object if someone were to create that as an entry. As for ‘Hacker’ itself though, delete. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Donnanz: "Fosseway" can be found lower-cased, e.g. 1818, The Archaeological Journal (volume 45, page 313): " […] with regard to the fosseway running north and south through it, more being to the westward of the fosseway than the eastward, whereas the original shape probably approximated to a circle lying equally on each side of the fosseway." Equinox ◑ 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I guess it can be left as it is. DonnanZ (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Donnanz: "Fosseway" can be found lower-cased, e.g. 1818, The Archaeological Journal (volume 45, page 313): " […] with regard to the fosseway running north and south through it, more being to the westward of the fosseway than the eastward, whereas the original shape probably approximated to a circle lying equally on each side of the fosseway." Equinox ◑ 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)