Talk:Rolling Stones

RfD discussion
Does Wiktionary accept The Rolling Stones? --LaRos 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? Kappa 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - LaRos was Wonderfool. SemperBlotto 17:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, understood out of context. Closing per SB. DAVilla 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a test:

DAVilla 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2017–May 2018
How is that dictionary material? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that the quotation points to a genericized usage, however. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we need an entry for because the following is just one of many instances of its use:
 * Some more:
 * IOW, IMO, Delete, unless we really do want to become a short-attention-span encyclopedia. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For a really funny list of many more, see this passage in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by and Emmanuel Sander. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We have an entry for Beatles, and a number of other Proper Nouns for people, e.g. Cicero, Homer.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the point about the usage example. This kind of "the X of Y" is a standard pattern of English usage that can be used with essentially any proper noun X. Mihia (talk)
 * Delete for the reason given by Mihia. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For a really funny list of many more, see this passage in Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by and Emmanuel Sander. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We have an entry for Beatles, and a number of other Proper Nouns for people, e.g. Cicero, Homer.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the point about the usage example. This kind of "the X of Y" is a standard pattern of English usage that can be used with essentially any proper noun X. Mihia (talk)
 * Delete for the reason given by Mihia. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as currently defined (the band). I don't like the "Beatles of the 21st century"-type entries either but we do seem to have a historical consensus of inclusion; I have raised such entries for deletion before and been disagreed with. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but alter the definition to cover the genericized use. When something is called the "Rolling Stones" of some field, the relevant point is not that they are a successful and long-lived band, it is that they had that "bad-boy" image, in contrast to the more innocent image of the Beatles. If someone looks up a proper noun like this in the dictionary, as opposed to in an encyclopedia, it is because they want to know what you mean by "the Rolling Stones of voice-over artists." The current definition does not answer that. Kiwima (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I myself am very curious about what might be meant by "the Mussolini of mulligatawny". I don't think a dictionary can or should address that. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * By that token we would have to include in the dictionary virtually every proper noun in existence and explain each of their potential attributes or associations. Mihia (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "virtually every proper noun in existence": Far from it. A fraction of all proper names has this kind of "the X of Y" usage attested. And we could set a higher threshold for the number of such uses attested, if required, to limit the volume of included items. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For standard patterns that are used ad hoc, the issue of attestation is not very relevant. Mihia (talk)
 * There might be grounds for altering CFI to include such proper names that have attestable derived terms (Homeric, Ciceronian). DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have heard worse ideas. Equinox ◑ 03:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Governed by WT:NSE, and thus, up to editor discretion. As for "Millard Fillmore", that is excluded by current CFI: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." The "X of Y" pattern is a usual construction, sure, but far from every attested proper name has such usage attested, and therefore, the pattern does provide a filter, an element potentially usable in guiding inclusion and exclusion of proper names. Returning back to "Millard Fillmore", finds 24 hits in total but not all independent. By wading through, I find more relevant usages (and many irrelevant ones). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's ; "the Bee Gees of" is not found there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per "the Rolling Stones of" pattern; the pattern serves as a useful filter, preventing an overflood of similar entries: e.g. "the Bee Gees of" is not found above. More notes from me are above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per DCD. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 23:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)