Talk:spider in the web doctrine

A phrase, rather than a proper noun?
Is this actually a proper noun? Adam78 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a noun of some kind: the grammatical head is "doctrine". Equinox ◑ 07:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * And if its head is a noun, it disqualifies it from being a phrase? Adam78 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I see phrase as a "last resort" choice if there is no more specific part of speech. Equinox ◑ 16:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, (1) a proper noun by definition refers to a single entity, rather than a class of entities, and (2) a proper noun is an identifier, which remains the same no matter if the identified object changes its features. I don't see how either of these two criteria could apply here. (Also, I don't see any reference in Proper noun about proper nouns that no one would write in capitalized form.) Is there anything about the "spider in the web doctrine" which would stick to an object even if it doesn't comply with its definition? Just like "Africa" doesn't need to qualify as anything in order for it to retain its name (as long as it exists), but a "chair" will lose its "chairness" as soon as it's chopped up. I'm afraid "proper noun" is not tenable here. If we call swivel chair a noun, then the spider in the web doctrine should be a noun too (if you really don't want to label it a phrase). Spider in the web serves to specify doctrine just like swivel serves to specify chair. Adam78 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's "the such-and-such doctrine": there is only one, like the Eiffel Tower. Hence proper noun. Please take to WT:TR if you require further input. Equinox ◑ 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What you say almost sounds like being uncountable makes something a proper noun. Here are some 4.500 counterexamples (terms suffixed with -ism). (A doctrine can be seen as synonymous with a type of "-ism.") Note that even Marxism is classified as a "noun", despite its capitalization. If we don't call it a proper name, we have even less reason to call this current term (deriving from common nouns, otherwise conceptually analogous) a proper name.


 * I don't think I need more input on the matter. Thanks a lot for your ideas, which helped me examine the case from several angles and find a solution that is more in accordance with Wiktionary practice than your or my initial ideas. I'll be bold and make the change in the entry. If you are not happy with it, feel free to raise it in TR. Adam78 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, you don't know what countability is now, either... This certainly isn't uncountable!! I will fix for you. Equinox ◑ 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I used the entry of Marxism as a basis (eliminating "countable", which is pretty dubious, hence "-"), which actually says (countable and uncountable). If you only mean uncountable in the sense that rice or paper is, then Marxism cannot be uncountable either. It's not normally countable, too, so maybe a third category should be established, where neither of the above is applicable. Or perhaps you'd rather update the entry of Marxism in the same vein? And a few thousand other entries... I don't see consistence here, treating a doctrine and a philosophical or sociological -ism differently. Adam78 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you're an ignorant idiot, but I hope we will continue to be friends. I spend most of my time adding missing English words. Best wishes! I don't want to talk to you ever again, but you can take a slightly longer route around "finding that Eq was correct" via WT:ID. Equinox ◑ 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Truly the most basic countability will hurt. But it's hard to convince an idiot. Ask User:-sche who dislikes me (cause I'm not gay) but realised that countability is a real big deal. Equinox ◑ 23:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)