Talk:moccasin

The word is pronounced maschisin in contemporary Eastern Cree which usually replaces the k sound with ch. It is easy then to recognize a common origin.

RFV
RFV-sense: the adjective: "Of a light beige colour, like that of a moccasin." Tagged by someone ages ago but never listed. English adjectives has tips on how to tell an adjective from a noun. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting a few hits with the search string "moccasin colored". Spinning Spark  05:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "moccasin colored" could just mean "colored with the color of moccasins" and does not necessarily mean that "moccasin" itself is a color. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of those quasi-standard computing colour names like "ivory", "cornflower", "tomato", etc. Usage in normal English is doubtful. Equinox ◑ 10:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should specify that is an X11 color name and maybe even put it as translingual. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the noun also has a colour sense.
 * I don't think X11 colour names should be listed as translingual. Are they used in running German/Russian/Chinese/Arabic texts, or only in HTML? - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, moccasin clearly isn't an HTML only word. Many of the terms in Category:en:Colors which are undoubtedly nouns are also listed as adjectives meaning 'of an X color'. They could use a review... but then so could damn near everything on here. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. I'm just saying "moccasin" is AFAICT only used in English and HTML, and so isn't translingual. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe someone, at some point, added all of the X-system computer colours as English colours, which isn't accurate. So we need to decide which ones are real colours in English. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of reviewing... that is a good idea. Wikipedia has a system of marking articles as "good article". I think it would be good to have something similar for Wikipedia, although the review process probably shouldn't be too elaborate. Do you think this should be suggested on BP? 19:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a bad idea. I wonder what measures WP puts in place to prevent good articles from turning bad, though. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not place any obstacles in the way of editing GAs, or even FAs, although such articles are likely to be more widely watched than the average. There is a process for reassessment of GA status which can be seen at w:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.  Probably not a very useful process for Wikitionary as we already have rfc, rfv etc.  Perhaps just make it a rule that changes made to a page after it has been promoted must be listed at a suitable forum.  This could be stated in an editnotice or hidden text. Spinning Spark  07:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Codecat: We've raised the idea in the past, but the reasons for marking such an entry here are very different from those that WP uses. For example, can we ever be sure that the page ser has all the entries from all the world's languages that have ever existed?  Do we mark only English, or al languages?  And who is going to be willing to spend the necessary time in review and upkeep?  The French Wiktionary started an "Articles of Quality" program along these lines, and it fizzled out after only about a dozen entries, IIRC.  I'm not sure if it even exists anymore, since they no longer link it from their Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)