Talk:ranching

ranching
Adjective and noun senses
 * Move to RFV. There does seem to be a countable sense of ranching which we lack, meaning either a ranch, a farming area or something similar, evidence by a couple of valid hits for ranchings. Some of those hits are scannos or not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think more than 2 are "valid" (not, eg, scannos that missed an apostrophe). The really seem mistaken. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is used.Lucifer 03:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the adjective section. I am looking in to the noun. - -sche (discuss) 00:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A countable sense, which I interpret as meaning "ranch" but which I would welcome a better def of, is now attested. Should we, therefore, keep the sense "The process or act of operating or working on a ranch", or not? - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "the business or activity of operating a ranch"? DCDuring TALK 03:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed the def to that (and added to it ", of farming or raising livestock"). To clarify why I'm asking: it does seem that that sense is merely the gerund of "ranch"; is having another sense (namely "a ranch") enough to cause us to keep the gerund as a noun? - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd let it stay, not because it is actually a meaning distinct from the -ing form, but because inevitably someone will add a similar sense. At least this is worded adequately. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we do not permit such nouns then extant plurals (ranchings, sneezings) cannot be added in the standard way, since there is no noun entry for them to be the plural of. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We are going to have a noun entry with the uncommon sense "ranch" anyway, so that isn't the issue here. OTOH, for the general case your comment applies. Just spitballing here: We could use a non-categorizing version of in the inflection line for the verb PoS of -ing forms where there is no semantic reason (eg, a distinct sense) to have a noun PoS section. DCDuring TALK  13:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, for the record, kept per consensus. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)