Talk:marshal

Federal lawman
In the US, a marshal is a federal lawman NOT a sheriff's assistant ... that would be a deputy. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Highest ranking piece on the board game Stratego. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, too encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean too specialized? It's exactly the same case as the chess sense of king, except that it's a specialized term used only for Stratego, and Stratego is a trademark. Is there a rule about such cases? Lmaltier 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The most relevant precedent I can think of is house, referring to the Monopoly token. I labored mightily to find citations in which the word was used to refer to the token not being used in the game itself or in a fanzine. I don't know whether fanzine citations should count (or whether there are such for Stratego. Chess pieces are more likely to have appeared in usage like the "house" usage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that house in Monopoly is the usual sense of house, only applied to the Monopoly rules and, therefore, does not deserve a definition line more than the word bill applied to Monopoly, unless there are allusions to the Monopoly context which might be difficult to understand without this definition line? Is this the rule?
 * I think that finding marshal in its Stratego sense used outside the Stratego context is likely to be impossible, it's like looking for uses of Mammalia outside the context of zoology... Lmaltier 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion of January 2008. It was a vote after a full discussion, from the days when CFI was not a dead letter. The Monopoly house sense was deleted. Note the citations. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't WT:CFI apply here? (That's the same argument I gave back then for removing the Monopoly sense of house, incidentally.) &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that does apply, should we move to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Highest ranking piece on the board game Stratego. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, too encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean too specialized? It's exactly the same case as the chess sense of king, except that it's a specialized term used only for Stratego, and Stratego is a trademark. Is there a rule about such cases? Lmaltier 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The most relevant precedent I can think of is house, referring to the Monopoly token. I labored mightily to find citations in which the word was used to refer to the token not being used in the game itself or in a fanzine. I don't know whether fanzine citations should count (or whether there are such for Stratego. Chess pieces are more likely to have appeared in usage like the "house" usage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that house in Monopoly is the usual sense of house, only applied to the Monopoly rules and, therefore, does not deserve a definition line more than the word bill applied to Monopoly, unless there are allusions to the Monopoly context which might be difficult to understand without this definition line? Is this the rule?
 * I think that finding marshal in its Stratego sense used outside the Stratego context is likely to be impossible, it's like looking for uses of Mammalia outside the context of zoology... Lmaltier 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion of January 2008. It was a vote after a full discussion, from the days when CFI was not a dead letter. The Monopoly house sense was deleted. Note the citations. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't WT:CFI apply here? (That's the same argument I gave back then for removing the Monopoly sense of house, incidentally.) &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that does apply, should we move to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Moved from RFD. Please continue discussion here.''' &#x200b;—msh210℠ 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with the contention that the fictional-universes criterion applies, please speak up. The thirty-day clock is ticking. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)