Talk:Xenophanes

Xenophanes
No attributive use given for the person. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wha’?! Why RfV this one? He’s a famous præ-Socratic! †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because being an Ancient Greek doesn't get you a free pass from meeting WT:CFI. This one would make it as a name word. I'm sure that WP has a page for all the famous Xenophaneses. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the English transliteration of a Greek, given name. We include names.  I will try to tweak the def a bit, to make it more in line with a dictionary.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added three cites that I think reflect occasional use of this as a byword for a Xenophanic thinker. Where are we on bywords?  Can this now be split into a separate sense a la Robespierre? -- Visviva 07:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After the addition of the cites the use of the given name as a byword is incontestable and thereby the article becomes justified. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think that we should split the two senses. The "religious thinker" sense is obviously cited at this point...although I am a little uncertain as to what its POS would be, so I'll let someone else make that split.  It seems the sense referring to the specific historical entity has been removed, so I wonder if we still need three cites for the given name sense.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored the more explicit reference to the pre-Socratic, since no one will get “the Colophonian poet, philosopher and religious critic” who doesn’t already know who the eponymous Xenophanes is (and will therefore not need to look up his name hereon). In re splitting: the one and only undefined: (Wikipedia has an article on only one “Xenophanes” — no others are notable, it seems) is a proper noun, whereas the “religious thinker” sense derives from that eponym, and is a common noun (irrespective of its initial majuscule). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"atr.use"'dget aMEGA-RASBRY4MOST USE-LES PROP[concept if ulike],EVA--user-BLINDppl!--史凡 >voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfectly good entry. One day we'll get CFI changed to "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But doing so may just make en.wikt a shorter WP.
 * As to the citation standard that has been introduced: if we permit any citation of the form "[det] [X Y] of Z", where [X Y] constitute a proper noun, then Marilyn Monroe, Jerry Rice, Derek Jeter, Michael Jackson, Judge Crater, Charles Manson, etc. will soon be in here. This would be a powerful precedent indeed. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If properly cited and explained, I think these should be welcome here. How many people now understand what Uncle Vanya means when he says "I could have been a Schopenhauer"?  How many will understand it in another century?  Or when some relict bit of literary criticism declares so-and-so to be "the Addison of his day"?  But as with brand names, the standard should be aggressively enforced, and proper names without such citation -- that is, those that are not shown to refer to anything but their normal referent -- should be removed. -- Visviva 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the value of it, but that value in one traditionally captured by encyclopedias. I think that accepting there quotes requires a reinterpretation of the attestation rules that have been deemed to apply to proper names. In effect it is a material easing of our standards. Is this justified as "attributive use" in a broader sense of attributive than we have been using? Has the consensus on how we cite Proper nouns changed over the last year or did I misunderstand the consensus? This might be a very reasonable place to redraw the line for inclusion. But how does this apply to proper names that are attestable in this way only in another language? Does it have any effect of the citation of fictional characters? I suppose we aren't doing all that great a job of getting folks to improve the quality of entries anyway, so we may as well just increase quantity. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed in its current form. Thanks for the cites, Visviva, and for other work on the entry, Vahagn, Atelaes, and Doremítzwr. (Note: this "RFV passed" does not preclude an RFD listing.) —Ruakh TALK 14:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RFD result
Xenophanes Striking as no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This RFD was a part of a batch of requests; the discussion for the whole batch is in Talk:Xenocrates. --Dan Polansky 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion: April 2010
Says: "By extension, a profound or transformative religious thinker", but no context for the extension is provided. There is a definition in the previous section about the philosopher, but it is under a different POS header and is marked for deletion. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The three citations seem to support this sense. If the first sense fails RFD, this should be kept with the three definitions, and that second definition moved to the etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)