Template talk:idiomatic

Category
Where'd the category go? --Connel MacKenzie 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:idiomatic
I'm not really sure what this context is actually meant to convey. Everything made out of several punctuation-separated parts on Wiktionary is considered idiomatic, because it's part of our CFI. So that label seems rather redundant; it could be added to just about anything made out of multiple parts. It would be more noteworthy if a sense were literal. Of course, certain senses may be more easily derived from the parts than others, but it does still seem like a rather vague description. 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree, there's a difference between what we call idiomatic in terms of WT:CFI and 'idiomatic' in the lexical sense. We use a special sense of idiomatic in WT:CFI that's Wiktionary-only. Keep. Will provide more reasons if necessary. Out of interest, do you actually think this has a chance of failing or is it more about raising awareness about the issue? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a part of both. Even if it is kept, I still hope that we can clarify somewhat when we consider something an "idiom" and when not. I mean, would give up be considered an idiom, and why or why not?
 * Keep —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * RFD-passed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)