Talk:price of tea in China

RFD discussion: June 2015
Doesn't the literal sense "The wholesale or retail price of tea in the country of China" (with quotations!) take this whole literal sense thing a tad too far? C'mon, now. -- · (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of replacing it with, which is what we standardly use in such cases. Assuming nobody objects to this, I think the RFD can be struck. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, I dream of a future Wiktionary which contains no template. I think my rfd-sense stands. This one just screams "needless, pointless" sense. -- · (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I still object to the definition. --Type56op9 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the sense. However much I might wish to omit it is the dictionary of my dreams, it seems to be necessary at Wiktionary to prevent inane (SoP) definitions such as the one originally challenged.
 * On what grounds would we remove the non-definition that is the text displayed by the template? That it is SoP? DCDuring TALK 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 points re DCDuring's 2 points: (1) isn't necessary in order to "prevent inane (SoP) definitions such as the one originally challenged". Hell, DC, we can just unceremoniously delete inane SoP definitions without even the formality of going through an rfd-sense. (2) And the grounds I'd give for removing "the non-definition that is the text displayed by the template" (and for removing every other occurrence of  as well) is that the non-definition provides no new information whatever about the term. These unhelpful non-definitions are an embarrassing, amateurish-looking waste of magnetic disk surface. -- · (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting them doesn't prevent them from being re-entered. seems to reduce such re-entry.
 * The text is clearly unhelpful and annoying to you. Do you have any reason to believe it is unhelpful to users and to those who would need to be determining whether a given entry is in our opinion SoP?
 * If you are concerned with all use of, you should take your concern to WT:RFDO to delete (It has already passed RFD once.) or to WT:BP. DCDuring TALK  15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am strongly in favour of : without it, it looks like the idiomatic meaning is the only meaning; with it, it makes clear that there is an idiomatic meaning, and the obvious literal meaning. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm persuaded. Keep the  sense. DC makes a valid point that  does help protect an entry from the addition of silly literal definitions. Similarly, some experienced editors like to add redirects for idioms and  entries to guard against the creation of unwanted extra entries for terms that have already been defined. I'll buy that. -- · (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I weakly support the deletion of the literal definition as obvious. I more strongly support the deletion of the quotations under the literal meaning, which seem to me to be labouring the point way too much. 109.151.63.170 21:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree re the quotations. Done. -- · (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC) 06:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)