Talk:greenline

Green line
For discussions about green line, see Talk:green line. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

RFV
Rfv-sense: To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.

I have not been able to find support for "services" outside of real estate lending and property insurance, though it would not be too much of a surprise. I have created and found citations for the financial services sense (mostly lending, but I think insurance would be supportable). There are other senses for greenlined involving parkland areas and some kind of cloth used for umbrellas and parasols, among other things. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as disruptive: DCDuring found sources, then claimed they were for a new definition of his own devising rather than the existing definition that he's RfVing. Each of the citations he has down for #2 (his new definition) also supports #1 as a definition (the definition he's contesting).  DCDuring's new definition #2 is too close to the definition he's RfVing, and if one of them should be deleted, it's his.  The definition also needs to be preserved to maintain parallelism with the antonym of greenlining, redlining.  Furthermore, DCDuring has a history of being contentious toward me, so I somewhat suspect this latest stunt is part of that history.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Having two senses, each with the same three citations, and one RFVed while the other is RFDed, is certainly some kind of bureaucratic mess. Ouch. Equinox ◑ 20:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The second sense should have never been added, as it is redundant to the first. The only difference is the first sense puts the onus on residents while the second sentence puts the onus on businesses.  Only one sense is needed.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding the second definition definitely disrupts the process of sloppy, unsupported definition practiced by the contributor of the first sense. The first definition would have us believe that the term includes all banking and insurance services, as well as health care. The citations solely support real-estate lending and possibly property insurance.
 * Should I have instead simply edited the first definition to exclude what I cannot find support for?
 * I really don't see how parallelism is any justification, under CFI or on any but some idiosyncratic semantic-theoretical basis for inclusion. I also think that Purplebackpack89 has a pattern of personalizing any disagreement. This disagreement is readily resolved by the simple means of finding citations to support the extended sense.
 * Finally, the narrow sense is certainly older, with the yet-unattested extension much more recent. The timing of the evolution of the extension, should it be attested, would be worthwhile lexical information, nicely accommodated by separate definitions and separate applications of . DCDuring TALK 22:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You say I have a pattern of personalizing the disagreement...in the same comment where you personalize the disagreement, in your sentence that begins "Adding the second definition...". You should not have done things the way you did, an RfV was not needed.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it is completely unnecessary to find new citations when the current citations in the article support either definition. Three distinct citations support definition #1.  One citation applying it to something other than banking, maybe.  But you didn't need an RfV for one, you only need RfV when a definition has no citations, and this definition HAS citations  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is wrong of you to dismiss the parallelism argument. The term redlining predates greenlining in common parlance; redlining is STILL the more common term and greenlining is a term ONLY because redlining was a term first.  Anything that can be redlined can also be greenlined.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is only about citations. I thought gum-flapping, such as yours about symmetry, belonged on WT:RFD, though it really has no bearing on RfD either, never being mentioned directly or indirectly in WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're the one who personalized it, forcing DCDuring to defend himself- which he did by putting your rant in the context of your usual modus operandi. You sometimes stick to the merits of the case at hand, but mostly you hold forth on the topic of how everyone either a) hates you b) is generally deficient in character or intellect, or c) narrow-mindedly wants to delete everything (often a combination of all three). If anyone replies in kind, you scream about personal attacks. I can see why Mglovesfun wanted to block you, even though I agree that was wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Time to close: It's been four weeks, the sources are there, they've been there for four weeks Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Passed: Citations for this entry have been there for well over a week and the tag has been removed Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–December 2014
Sense of “To designate an area as suitable for profitable real-estate lending and property insurance” is redundant to “To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.” Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The broader sense is unsupported, which is why it is RfVed. The new, narrower sense has three citations. If the broader sense is actually attestable, then of course it stays. The narrower sense is the original definition, going back at least to the 1960s. The extension to other services, if attestable at all, is certainly newer, which lexical information is most readily displayed using with separate definitions. DCDuring TALK  21:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The senses are essentially the same, therefore both senses can be supported by any of the citations provided. The only difference between the definitions is that the correct one (mine) is about residents GETTING stuff, while the incorrect one (yours) is about banks GIVING stuff.  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Transitivity needs to be dealt with here. One sense suggests the verb applies to an area (which agrees with the citations) while the other suggests it applies to a service. Can you "greenline the banking in Ontario", or would it be "a bank that greenlines Ontario"? Equinox ◑ 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, it would help if you said which was which. Secondly, I'm not seeing that.  They both talk about areas and services  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell which is which, then you are proving my point that the transitivity needs to be specified! Equinox ◑ 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One more thing: in this sense, the word "profitable" is not supported by the citations. What is supported is THAT more services are provided, not WHY they are  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is really a debate about how to word the definition, rather than about the existence of one or the other variant of the same thing. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, DCDuring should never have added a second definition and should have started a discussion on the article's talk page about the definition rather than an RfV of a definition that was correct, but that he didn't like. But he didn't, so here we are.  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in gum-flapping. I'm interested in citations, empirical support instead of verbosity. I usually descend to verbosity only as a last resort, usually when others fail to provide empirical support for their questionable positions. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have three citations that support either definition, there's no need to accuse me of gum-flapping. THIS isn't an RfV anyway, so citations schmitations.  If more citiations are needed (again, the citations in there support either definition), I have at least a week to find them, during which I can do as much gum-flapping or whatever you call it as I want  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is NO EMPIRICAL SUPPORT for the extension of meaning beyond real-estate loans and property insurance. You have admitted to only having a symmetry argument (from the antonym), which symmetry argument has no support in WT:CFI. I rest your case. DCDuring TALK 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, you don't get to rest my case. This is the request for deletion of YOUR definition, not the request for verification of MINE.  It's embarrassing that you haven't made that distinction, nor frankly provided any argument why your definition should be kept.  Tearing down my definition won't save your own.  I again remind you that while citations might be preferable, I don't have to cite it this very minute.  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was (foolishly) responding to your off-topic objection to my decision not to use Talk:greenline as a venue. That was the case previously rested.
 * The second definition is not redundant to the first as it has a materially narrower scope, as mentioned above. No other reason for deletion has been presented. I hereby rest your RfD case. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get to arbitralily decide that a deletion discussion of a definition you wrote it over, sorry. That's not how it works.  Editors other than I have questioned your decision to do things in the manner in which you did, and you really have yet to offer a reasonable explanation for that as well.  So we're going to keep talking.  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 18:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Purplebackpack89, It didn't help that you duplicated the discussion here at RFD (when it could have been resolved at RFV), and then blamed DCDuring when he made a comment on one page rather than the other. --WikiTiki89 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the other sense of "greenline" has passed RfV, meaning it won't be deleted and this sense is redundant to that one. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  23:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This looks like no consensus for deletion. Editors who I guess might be interested in this nomination include User:Dbfirs, User:Wikitiki89, User:Ƿidsiþ, and User:Equinox. If anyone wants to delete this sense (or this definition as contrasted to the other one in the entry), please speak now. The current two probably redundant definitions:
 * To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.
 * To designate (an area) as suitable for real-estate lending and property insurance.
 * Both defs have the same quotations listed in the mainspace as supporting them:
 * "Bankers, who must fight to stay even with inflation and face an uneven credit supply (even many "greenlined"' areas didn't get loans during the recession of 1974-1975)"
 * "But ABN-AMRO redlined some small areas in largely yellowlined zip code areas, and greenlined some small areas in largely redlined areas."
 * "If the new residents, especially the most recent arrivals, are less tolerant of lower or working-class behavior, these tensions may become serious. Banks begin to greenline the area, looking for spatial patterns of reinvestment"
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can the senses be merged? It seems to me that "to designate an area as suitable" for something is merely one case of easing access to that something. How about "To ease access to services to residents in specific areas, particularly by designating those areas as suitable for those services"? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course they can. There is no evidence in the entry that greenline is used to refer to any services other than mortgage lending and property insurance. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Senses merged. I'm calling this closed as moot. Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)