Talk:Orinoco

RFV discussion: October 2014–January 2015
Rfv-sense: adjective. Seems to be a misrepresentation of attributive use of the proper noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing for "more Orinoco", nothing for "most Orinoco", nothing for "very Orinoco" when you exclude the phrase "that very Orinoco", nothing for "slightly Orinoco", nothing useful for "is Orinoco", "was Orinoco" or "were Orinoco"... I'm going to go with the Flow and say delete away, delete away, delete away... Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we really need a whole RFV for this? Cant the fact that Orinocan exists prove that this was just a misclick or other type of mistake, and that they meant "Orinocan" ?Soap (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Do we really need a whole RFV for this?' Yes. Orinico is often used attributively, eg, and, where Orinocan is not used. But Orinoco probably does not otherwise behave as an adjective (See English adjectives. The RfV is intended to make sure that "probably" is something we can rely on.
 * 'Cant the fact that Orinocan exists prove that this was just a misclick or other type of mistake, and that they meant "Orinocan"' ? Definitely not. It is not that kind of trivial error. First, Orininocan is not a substitute for Orinoco. Second, it is a matter of maintaining consistency in our presentation of English nouns. Virtually ALL (or just all? Are there any that cannot?) English nouns can be used attributively in virtually ALL of their senses. It would be silly and wasteful to have adjective sections to cover attributive use of all English nouns when almost no information is thereby added. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)