Talk:PlayStation

Request for verification
Rfv-sense: "An activity or object as popular as the PlayStation" --EncycloPetey 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited. Conrad.Irwin 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that doesn't fly. If it meant what the definition says, we would have "bullfighting is a PlayStation". But thank you for citing the gaming device. DAVilla 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed per DAVilla: sense removed, quotations moved to literal sense. —Ruakh TALK 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RFD-sense "a brand of consoles". The citations currently under this sense verify the "a console" sense, not the "a brand" sense, and any citation that verifies the brand sense — e.g. "Sony considered selling PlayStation and two other brands to another company" — automatically fails WT:BRAND, so RFV would be pointless (if you agree with my interpretation of WT:BRAND)—the "brand" sense can never meet CFI, by definition. I propose it be moved to the etymology, like this, while the "a console" sense remains; this is similar to how we treat other similar entires, such as [[Ford]], which is given as a common noun with a plural, although its definition seems to conflate the "brand" and "car" senses into one. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: You can have more than one PlayStation just like you can have more than one car Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood: I'm advocating deletion of the "brand" sense in favour of the pluralisable "console" sense. - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Delete. DAVilla 04:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion
RFV-sense "a brand of consoles". The citations currently under this sense verify the "a console" sense, not the "a brand" sense, and I expect that any citation that verifies the brand sense — e.g. "Sony considered selling PlayStation and two other brands to another company" — automatically fails WT:BRAND (for which reason, note the simultaneous RFD). But perhaps someone will surprise me and find citations of the "brand" sense that nevertheless pass BRAND. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. Failed the RFD so this is moot. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)