Talk:lexical warfare

RFV discussion: December 2015–February 2016
I request attestation in use as opposed to mention. There are currently two quotations and the one starting with '“Lexical Warfare” is a phrase that I like to use' is a mention. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of citations, but I'm rather on the side of the rfd. — Pingkudimmi 07:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV passed; the RFD hasn't closed yet., perhaps you would like to make your voice heard there? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2015–February 2016
SOP by Riverstogo. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. I had to look at the definition to find out what it meant, and having done so, I think it would be SOP if it were "semantic warfare". (In other words, "semantic warfare" would be a better term for this.) In order for "lexical warfare" to be SOP, it would have to be fighting over things like whether to call nonalcoholic carbonated beverages "soda", "pop", or "coke"; or, less trivially, over whether or not to use euphemisms or PC terminology in some context and if so, which terms to use. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has a 'definition' per se so much as it's warfare in the figurative sense of a lexical nature, where the meaning varies depending on the context, in the same way 'big' varies depending on the context; a big planet is very different from a big insect. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that every attestable sloppy use of language needs to be in even the most complete dictionary. I particularly don't see why a mistaken use of a word means that every attestable collocation involving that mistaken use needs to be in a dictionary. If you took this entry as an indication that users don't use the word lexical with the definition we find appropriate, and therefore added a definition to lexical, I could understand why and possibly agree. Given the poor quality of our entries for individual words, it seems like an indication or cause of the impending death of the project for us to piss away our individual and communal time on an entry like this. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (just to be clear). Since lexical does mean 'relating to a word or words' and this actually is warfare (figuratively) relating to a word or words it's entirely predictable from the sum of its part. The fact that 'semantic' would be better choice is not relevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the term to WT:RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. To be precise, the battle is not so much about the meaning of a word, as how it is defined.— Pingkudimmi 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)