Template talk:quite

This is a qualifier, with 6 transclusions. To me, it doesn't change the meaning one bit—given the subjective nature of our labelling, there's no meaningful difference at all between rare and quite rare. If you disagree and feel that it constitutes an intensifier in a particular instance, then please replace it with e.g. very rare. —Michael Z. 2009-06-25 05:13 z 


 * delete --Bequw → ¢ • τ 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite is not very. I see no harm in keeping this. If consensus is to delete it, someone must first change all instances of to  .  &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to do that.


 * If quite is not very, then what is it? According to the OED it is I. completely, II. actually; very much, and III. to a certain degree; moderately.  In Wiktionary, it's used to form quite rude (1 instance), and quite rare (5).  So is cut the muster completely rare, very much rare, or “moderately” rare (and is that not the same as both somewhat rare and rare?).


 * Ambiguous labels are worse than useless, because they will mislead unless every single reader makes the same assumption as an editor did (that is, they will all mislead). —Michael Z. 2009-06-30 04:11 z 
 * What would you consider a good complete list of qualifying labels, then, Michael? &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really know, but I think none would be better than all. A good practice might be to only introduce qualifiers which are used in labels in good modern dictionaries.  Applying a professional precedent and setting a theoretical limit may please the minimalists like me, but allowing labels from a variety of dictionaries might just please the free-for-allists.  Of course, if everyone ends up unhappy, that would mean we'd have achieved a compromise. —Michael Z. 2009-07-03 00:30 z 


 * Keep but merge with as the meanings are too similar for them to be used separately. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Subsume under .  †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled. Quite is an intensifier, while somewhat is quantitatively neutral, used more for confirmation or positive assertion.  “Somewhat large” means definitely large and not small, while “quite large” means larger than just plain large.  They convey different meanings. —Michael Z. 2009-09-27 13:54 z 


 * Quite [third sense] = somewhat; quite [first and second senses] = very. What results is confusion and ambiguity where unambiguous monosemic synonyms could do a much better job. (Cf. Visviva’s comment (14:00, 27 September 2009) below.)  †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. This is why I am puzzled that other editors want to combine these diverse and ultimately unusable labels, instead of deleting them or taking steps to discourage their use.  Do we have a method to deprecate a template as V suggests below? —Michael Z. 2009-09-27 14:30 z 


 * Comment: from the above it seems clear enough that this should be deprecated, maybe even with some little notice attached to remind editors to use more precise language. A word that may be interpreted by one person as "very" and by another as "somewhat" is quite unsatisfactory for qualifying a dictionary entry. -- Visviva 14:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I might have missed the point. Quite doesn't have any unambiguous mean, unlike very which is always means "x but even more so". I'll tag somewhat as well. This was tagged 4 months ago so I'd quite like to delete it unless anyone objects in say, 24 hours. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or deprecate. How would one even know how to redirect this? The best I could think of would be to the vague (but not ambiguous) "somewhat", but the contributors would have intended something either stronger or weaker. This is one of the most ambiguous of adverbs, completely unsuited for use in a dictionary. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)