Talk:Walmarts

RFV
Rfv-sense: "Common mispronunciation of Walmart". If it's common, show me the sources. I've never heard of a single Walmart mispronounced as multiple ones Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need look for verification because mispronunciations don't get entries in a dictionary.   D b f  i  r  s   13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be attestable (in a written form) as an error. But even if it is, do we want to keep every attestable error? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have the sense of multiple stores. (... and no, in my opinion, we don't want to record every attestable error, just the common ones with at least hundreds of Google hits, preferably thousands!)  Perhaps someone heard "Walmart's"?    D b f  i  r  s   08:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * white trash in america likes to pluralize words, nouns and verbs to be specific i.e. i walks to the store instead of I walk to the store or I love my moms instead of I love my mom. However I think the litmus test for what I believe are called respellings or eye spelling is attestability and although I am certain someone calls it Walmarts for it to be included here such as nigga, nikka, or fuckin' we need citations.Lucifer 09:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... but we can never find citations for a claimed mis-pronunciation. I expect we can find lots of examples of a missing apostrophe.   D b f  i  r  s   23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems much more likely to be a misspelling of a reconstruction (?) of "Walmart" to follow the pattern common among older and smaller stores having a name in the form of the possessive form of the founder's name, like "Macy's". Of course the founder of Walmart was not Mr. Walmart, but Sam Walton. At COCA Walmart's occurs 22 times, compared to 393 occurrences of Walmart. I've suggested the redirect be added at Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed ... so can we change sense 2 to read something like "common mis-spelling of Walmart's which is an error for a Walmart store"?   D b f  i  r  s   20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the term "misconstruction" or "misconstrual", but "mis-spelling" is OK. I think that "misconstruction" is somewhat better to characterize the application of a rule in an inappropriate circumstance. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sense rfv-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

RFD
We have this entry, but not the singular. That is kind of strange, isn't it? 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Comparable to my test entry of Pringle, perhaps. (Pringle and Walmarts are inflected forms used in English, but neither of them is the actual registered brand name.) Equinox ◑ 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, that is kind of why I am bringing this to attention. WT:BRAND says that we admit brands that have "entered the vocabulary", but how can Walmarts have entered the vocabulary when Walmart has not? It makes no sense to me. Either both should be included, or neither. 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can pluralise any branded thing really: "there are two Asdas in my town", "they sell Toyotas" (we have that one), "his previous phones were Samsungs"... and we would almost certainly include any brand that has become a verb, e.g. hoover, sellotape. Why not a noun? (I think it's a terrible idea to include such nouns, but why are they different?) Equinox ◑ 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Separate question: why is this classified as a proper noun? - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the entry. We all seem to agree that Walmart would not meet CFI (WT:BRAND) and would be deleted if it were created, so I thought about using "inflection or subpage of deleted entry" as my deletion summary. In the end, however, I decided "no usual content given" was the summary I'd most often seen used when inflected forms of terms en.Wikt didn't include the lemma forms of were deleted. - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do not see any boldfaced deletes, so this deletion was out of process. The plural seems attested and is not a sum of parts. WT:BRAND is a poor regulation excluding useful lexicographical content, unfortunately supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)