Talk:vi

Although the Portuguese and Spanish entries are identical, I've separated these in case either one is updated and also in case an entry for another language coming alphabetically between them is added. Paul G 11:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that makes most sense. Even when the spelling is the same between two languages. Often the pronunciation or the conjugation differs.Polyglot 12:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is VI really famous? Among Unix users, perhaps. I'm deleting "famous" from the entry. Paul G 11:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Changed it to most ubiquitous. It's the text editor one is almost guaranteed to find on all unix like OSsPolyglot 12:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is VI a proper noun? Is it capitalised? The command itself is lower case. Paul G 11:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know, so I just put both possible ways of writing it. (I know there are two more)Polyglot 12:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would like to propose to use this entry as a template of how entries are formatted on Wiktionary. I think it makes sense to have ====Translations==== on the fourth level. What do the other wiktionarians think?Polyglot 12:44, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that having Translations on the fourth level makes sense. I've had a look at the page and it looks great.  It's very clearly laid out.  I second Polyglot's proposal. Paul G 16:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Product name. WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text editor "vi" is not a physical product. WT:CFI says: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon. ...". Thus, WT:BRAND does not apply to "vi". --Dan Polansky 10:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * vi may be distributed on tangible media. In any event, bits are physical. WT:BRAND does not say tangible. Furthermore, at sufficiently high voltage bits could be tangible. Therefore, WT:BRAND does apply. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a text editor ("vi", "Word", "Emacs") is a physical product, then I do not know what a non-physical product looks like. All information products (including books, movies and software) are distributed to human minds via physical media, but that does not make them physical products. Furthermore, it is not even clear that "vi" is a brand. --Dan Polansky 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I would find it hard to believe that a book, a DVD, or a disk-based or on-hardware would be covered, but not the same content distributed by other physical means. How about lodging or equipment rental, where title to the physical element involved doesn't change hands? Or how about a company that sells electricity or exhibits movies or provides entertainment services? It is, of course, no tribute to the quality of our drafting that such an ambiguity was included and to our amendment process that the need for interpretationme ne has remained for so long. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be like when buying a CD, saying that the CD is a physical product, but the music on the CD is a non-physical product. It's a spurious distinction to make, I'm not sure it can be upheld. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is any one of you saying that the name of a song distributed on a gramophone record as a single is a "brand name for a physical product"? Are you saying that an MP3 song stored in an MP3 player is a physical product, per bits being physical? What is the role of "physical" in the phrase "physical product", if any; is "physical" superfluous in the phrase "physical product"? --Dan Polansky 12:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that, but that would be an extension of the same line of reasoning. I see no reason why an MP3 song title should be any different from a physical book's title. The think the role of "physical" is to define a starting point for the kind of extensions of meaning that naturally occur as one uses terms to apply to the real world. Another possibility is that the author intended only to exclude the brand image, the intangibles that advertisers view as the essence of a brand. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the title of a book is a "brand name of a physical product"? --Dan Polansky 13:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well a book is a physical product. Not sure that the title could be considered a brand name, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not all book titles have been trademarked. Some band names are service marks, which is wholly analogous to trademark for cases where there is even less tangibility than in the case of software. We can loose ourselves of the bonds of ordinary language by taking a legalistic, Humpty-Dumptyish approach of fixed the meaning of certain words for our purposes, risking the attendant inflexibility. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any product can be wholly non-physical. If I download something, it leaves a physical trace my my hard drive. Perhaps 'physical' is just redundant in this instance. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed, English section removed: no one added any citations, WT:BRAND-meeting or otherwise. And our definition was too controversial to live! —Ruakh TALK 19:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January–April 2017
"British, colloquial, pejorative: village idiot", with a citation from "a Religious Studies teacher" (unnamed) in 2012! If this fails, also remove the link to it at village idiot. Equinox ◑ 19:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)