Last modified on 20 December 2014, at 14:36

Talk:5

Return to "5" page.

EnglishEdit

"MI5; the agency or a particular agent."

Indeed, these are two different senses, seemingly one common noun, one proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Not being British, and not having any idea how to determine how accurate this is — whether MI5 refers equally to the agency and to any agent, whether 5 does the same — I decided it was simpler to revert the clearly wrong edit than to try to fix it and risk compounding any error. —RuakhTALK 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is not a way currently to "determine how accurate this is" then how is the edit "clearly wrong"? TeleComNasSprVen 00:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Because if there was any inaccuracy in the entry, then the edit left it intact, and if there wasn't, then it added one. —RuakhTALK 04:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RFVEdit

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Rfv-sense: "MI5; the agency or a particular agent." mainly listing it here as it needs citations to find out which, if either of the definitions are correct. "MI5; the agency" is a proper noun, and "a particular agent" is a common noun. I don't feel confident to split the two senses 'blindly' without knowing if either of them meet CFI. PS finding citations might be tough. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only ever seen the terms 5 and 6 used for the organizations. Stella Rimington (who should know) uses them that way in her novels. SemperBlotto 08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, the Google Books–indexed versions of her novels don't use them that way. But that might be a change the American publishers made (like how Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone here). If that is the case, do you have ready access to a British version, that you can add a cite from? —RuakhTALK 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've RFV-failed the "a particular agent" bit, whilst leaving "the agency MI5" in the hope someone will add the mentioned cites. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
So we need entries for the attestable proper noun senses of 101st, 82nd, etc.? DCDuring TALK 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Only one author was mentioned as using the term in this way, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)