Talk:ditch day

I've given the Caltech version special notice mostly because I'm an alumnus, but also because this particular version is a long-standing tradition receiving mention as such both in the local media and possibly in the occasional book. Lexicographically speaking, Caltech Ditch Day has connotations beyond the generic sense. -dmh 06:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–July 2016
Sense 2, the "Caltech tradition". This seems like it is at the wrong capitalization, but the correctly capitalized form would be entirely encyclopedic. bd2412 T 01:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sure you could come up with an analogous example sentence for any school that has a ditch day (I remember the term from high school, over 40 years ago). The practice at Caltech is only different in being a bit more institutionalized, not in anything lexically significant. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chuck. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "A tradition in which Caltech seniors leave the campus for the day and underclassmen attempt to break into their stacks." What sense of stack is this? Oh and delete obviously as a specific example of sense #1 not a different definition. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This sense: "(US, slang) At Caltech, a lock, obstacle, or puzzle designed to prevent underclassmen from entering a senior's room during ditch day." Equinox ◑ 12:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would delete that sense of "stack" too, or RfV it under standards comparable to WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Lexical significance is not in CFI. (Is this notability under another name?) I see no argument advanced that would lead to deletion.
 * Move to RfV. I wonder whether it appears in any publication except the student newspaper, for which multiple articles may be deemed not independent. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, sense in question is not lexically distinct from sense 1. This would be like having a separate sense under Thanksgiving for each individual family's Thanksgiving traditions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there was attestation for the name referring to ANY real or fictional supplementary tradition not a direct implication of the main definition, CFI would seem to warrant its inclusion as a subsense. That the absence of seniors should lead to some kind of vandalism is not an inevitable consequence.
 * That we are without good principles to apply is the inevitable consequence of having no specific criteria for inclusion of many classes of proper nouns. Perhaps we need some kind of notability criteria for such things, but we don't now have such criteria and are making unprincipled decisions not readily defensible to contributors. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we would merely be conflating the event of a day when people ditch school with traditions incidental to such a day. Consider, by comparison, freshman orientation. Every college has this, and many colleges have specific traditions observed in connection with the day. In theory, we could have a thousand entries for definitions of "freshman orientation" with variations on a day when new students are oriented to their school combined with a tradition specific to that school. Or, as with Angr's Thanksgiving example, we could add to that definition, "and on which a meal of turkey is traditionally served"; but then needing a separate definition line for families who traditionally have a ham or go out for Peking duck. bd2412 T 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)