Talk:learn to play

RFV
Failed without prejudice as uncited. Possibly SOP, though. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposed distinct gaming sense, yet to be provided. Is it distinct? Is it just a use-in-context? DCDuring TALK 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'm understanding the entry correctly, and reading between the right lines, it's saying that MMORPGers use to mean "You are bad at playing [this game]", much as drivers use  to mean "You are a bad driver" (see  for some fun examples). I don't see that it warrants an entry even if it's attestable. —Ruakh TALK 23:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this RFV is premature. Equinox tagged it with RFC, presumably hoping to get a clearer meaning of the term, then we can move it to rfv or rfd. But if there is no supporting evidence, by all means delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We could wait for a gamer to define it or we could get some cites and define it based on the evidence. I strongly suspect that Ruakh's estimate is right: it is an imperative, all of which are trivially "speech acts" of some sort. But how can we know without some effort. I also feel that cleanup doesn't attract as much effort as RfD or RfV. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know (being a gamer myself), this phrase is used in response to complaints, and means basically 'your complaints demonstrate a lack of understanding of how this game works'. —CodeCat 18:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect the same thing as you (all of you) it's just purely instinct on my part, rather than evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah Codecat sounds about right. It's something that might be said when someone's doing something stupid or "nooby". Perhaps it might be worthwhile to note that it's often something used arrogantly (at least that's what I think. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is the meaning, it seems to be decodable from its components in context, ie, NISoP. From the lack of effort to cite it, I infer that most don't think this would meet CFI.
 * If it makes sense to include such "pragmatics" considerations in Wiktionary, shouldn't that be a distinguishing feature of a phrasebook-type entry, a large proportion of which are necessarily NISoP. Except as part of such a phrasebook I see little reason for including this. Meaning shifts due to irony, sarcasm, tone of voice, linguistic politeness are not, in themselves, sufficient for inclusion in our practice. Such expressions as the dated "Get a horse!" yelled at bad drivers of automobiles in the first half of the 20th century in the US are quite analogous to this expression. I think we could find many, many thousands of such expressions if we should choose to include them. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On World of Warcraft, it often gets abbreviated to L2P in game chat. — Robin 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * L2P would be almost certainly be attestable, not that we have very explicit standards for abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I Cd it and removed the RFC, finding durable cites might be hard, but I know that it has been around for more than 15 years, probably since the origins of MUDs. - 20:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Failed RFV. May be common or may not, but nobody bothered to cite it, and it seems like sum of parts too. Equinox ◑ 00:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion: November 2010
Tagged by Equinox. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)