Talk:tracer

RFV discussion: December 2018–January 2019
Rfv-sense "The act of tracking or investigating something." Some other dictionaries seem to have a similar sense, but this is unfamiliar to me. Is it specific to a dialect? Can we provide some usage examples to support this sense (and make it clear to me how it might be used)? - TheDaveRoss  14:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently you can "put a tracer on someone" (similar usage to ). I've added two citations. One is from a sci-fi story but seems to refer to a group of people/trackers rather than any sci-fi gizmo device. Equinox ◑ 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That second one looks like it is referring to call tracers, which are potentially their own thing. The first one is certainly solid. - TheDaveRoss  16:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a definition: "A request to trace the movements of a person or an object, such as a shipment." That has been a fairly common usage in police procedural fiction and in shipping. Current technology may have reduced the need for such "tracers", eg, text messaging that a package has been scanned somewhere. DCDuring (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d rather just define as “a process of tracing”, as there is no reason why the “act” should be seen (or defined) as punctual. What just added as “A request to trace” seems to miss what is intended to be expressed, because the important part is the tracing itself, with any motivation (requested or not). The one artist writes: “It starts to feel like a tracer” – but you don’t feel the request. Fay Freak (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As the common collocation is with the word "put" a punctual interpretation is quite natural, even unavoidable. If there is sufficient evidence for some other interpretation as well, so be it. DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the commencement, the opening cause is put, and then a process of tracing starts. I can’t even discern what the factual difference between “trace the movements of a person or an object” and “tracking or investigating something” is. These definitions describe the same. Fay Freak (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't use put with "the act of tracking of investigating something." The definition as written is not substitutable.
 * The only usage that I am familiar and can document is that a tracer is "a request" that is put. So the definition under challenge doesn't meet the basic test that it must meet to be said to fit the usage I know. I am not familiar with usage of tracer by someone who is a recipient of the request. To the extent that it is an activity that takes time my expectation is that the activity would be called tracing unless a wholly different term (eg, investigation, DMV check) is used. The definition of tracing would probably be adequately covered in the lemma trace. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed. If you are unhappy with the wording of the definition, I suggest you put in a request for cleanup. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How confident are you that the second cite supports this sense? I have no idea what the writer is trying to say from context. It also isn't terribly clear that a self-produced album which wasn't released anywhere would meet the durability criteria, but that is secondary to the quote actually conveying meaning. The first quote seems solid enough, the third is slightly than the second. If this is the best evidence available I would consider it failed. - TheDaveRoss  13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked myself often how the durability criterion can be applied to current forms of music distribution. The written CFI are clearly aimed at written sources while of course the intent of the dictionary is to catch spoken language too, not to be slanted more towards written language more than necessary, but spoken language is saved and sold rather incommensurably. The question I personally ask myself is: Will the internet community as a whole be likely to keep the thing on the internet? In this case I emphasize that the lyrics are on Genius legally, it is extremely unlikely that the authors delete the lyrics from the internet and it is likely that other lyrics sites are filled with the lyrics by bots. The same happens with songs: You hope they get copied over all those MP3 search engines. I guess you can make any song durable by uploading the lyrics to relevant lyrics sites so they get copied until death of the internet (and Wiktionary, since when the free internet as we know it is gone we will have graver concerns than lyrics we don’t know where to find). This is “institutions of some degree of permanence [that] will keep the material accessible” DCDuring mentions about the word “black pill” below. And also at least you’ll here witness that the quotes are real, this being enabled by the form the things have been “published” in. “Evidence” comes from, you have seen it, you have even heard it. On one side this is better than some rare print you don’t have access to but lies “durably” in the archives of my city where you won’t go to: Troll-safe quotes is what we are concerned about, not to be fooled by the protologisms of a 4chan board or some redditors. Concerning the second quote it seemed to me that it is the gloss that fits best, of the glosses that are in the entry. That works until you find another meaning of the word the quote fits even more to. Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I have replaced that second quote from a clearer one from a book. Kiwima (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)