Talk:Uilleann

I wouldn't swear it does have to be capitalized.Geof Bard 19:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RFV
Does this actually mean anything (especially capitalised)? SemperBlotto 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC) p.s. We already have uilleann pipes

 (1)If we have uilleann pipes then obviously it is an adjective. I don't see how you can in good faith ask if the word "actually" does "mean anything" when you yourself verify that it is a type and category which applies to pipes. I don't see the point of any further verification that the word does actually mean anything but I will invite you to be more specific about what you believe should be verified.

(a) Doesn't that therefore moot the verification Template? (b)What constitutes "resolution"? Agreement of SemperBlotto? (c) What is the deadline on this putatively pending deletion? (d) What is the venue for the arbitration? (e)i. Is the deletion appealable? ii.To whom? iii.Why is that information included in the template? (f) Why is this thread not located on the discussion page of the word proposed for heightened scrutiny?

(2)At minimum, the deletion threat should be withdrawn give 1, above, but I suppose one might reduce the entry to "a type of bagpipe". I don't see the value in that, but that appears to be the maximum remedy that can in good case be applied since the preumptive template-posting editor offers no refutation of the word's adjectival status. Indeed, offers an example of its use in a two word compound.

(3) Maybe it should be lower case, I don't have a problem with that. Please note that whether or not a word does "actually mean" anything, capitalization does not intensify paucity of meaning. Hence, I don't understand the parenthetical secondary question.

Thank you for your interest in the quality of wiktionary. Please see my requests for comment linked from my UserPage. Geofferybard 21:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC) 


 * Re: "If we have uilleann pipes then obviously it is an adjective", "the preumptive template-posting editor offers no refutation of the word's adjectival status. Indeed, offers an example of its use in a two word compound": Note that plenty of words besides adjectives are used in attributive position. In particular, nouns are commonly used this way: in "high school principal", "high school" is a noun. See English adjectives for some guidance on identifying adjectives.
 * Re: "I don't see how you can in good faith ask if the word 'actually' does 'mean anything' ": Well, if you read the current entry, you'll see that it doesn't mention whether the word actually means anything! It only gives etymological information.
 * Re: "What constitutes 'resolution'?": If and when there is consensus that the entry demonstrates that the word meets our criteria for inclusion, it will be resolved as "RFV passed". Conversely, if a long period goes by without such being demonstrated, it will be resolved as "RFV failed" and deleted.
 * Your tone, by the way, is needlessly adversarial. This isn't a "deletion threat", it's a request that the entry's contents be verified.
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Requests for verification isn't a 'debate', it's about evidence. Fancy words win you nothing here. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)