Talk:twist

Just to point out - http://909sickle.com/s/ironic-twist/recursive-twist.png -- 134.225.165.163 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - really, the verb should be defined first, then the noun can be more sensibly defined in terms of the verb. SemperBlotto 16:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing material senses from Chambers 1908
"twist, n. a cord: a single thread: a strong silk thread: (obs.) coarse cloth." Equinox ◑ 19:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed similar notes on the talk pages of other entries, is their a particular reason for adding the notes to the them instead of the relevant content to the entries? &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what I am doing, I have spent more than ten years adding missing senses to entries. I put stuff on the talk page if I think it's questionable, like a nonce word, or difficult to attest. Equinox ◑ 07:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. I was not trying to put doubt on the validity of what you were doing and have done. The root that prompted me to ask the question is that I generally consider a term to very likely have "clearly widespread use" if a generally reliable dictionary includes it (I do recognize there may be instances similar to that done on some maps where non-existent things are intentionally included in order to catch those copying the material). Because of that, seeing the information not be readily included confused me. I now understand that for some terms the fact that they are included does not suffice and that therefore they need to have established "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year", something which is sometimes difficult, as you stated. I appreciate the explanation, it helps me understand how I might/should handle/react to the your notes on entries' talk pages. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No magic. But if you know it then add it, you know? I think it's better to have these discussions of slightly obscure senses on the talk page, rather than add them haphazardly (probably unable to find any nice citations) and just blindly trust that they will survive over time. Cheers, Equinox ◑ 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing finance sense?
"Twisting the yield curve" appears to be some sort of trick done with short- and long-term debt, to take advantage of interest rates. See. Equinox ◑ 13:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a metaphor. I doubt it is much used currently as well. DCDuring (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)