Talk:Pearl of Great Price
Latest comment: 10 years ago by BD2412 in topic Pearl of Great Price
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Title of a specific work by Joseph Smith, not used generically. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- We kept 1 Chronicles which I felt was ultimately just the name of a book, albeit a very well-known and culturally important one. From a linguistic point of view, this is no less justifiable. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1 Chronicles is an irregular abbreviated form of the First Book of Chronicles, different from its literal title, so that case is somewhat different. Song of Solomon would serve your argument better. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- We kept 1 Chronicles which I felt was ultimately just the name of a book, albeit a very well-known and culturally important one. From a linguistic point of view, this is no less justifiable. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The deletion rationale of "not used generically" is a personal one, not part of Wiktionary policies. This particular RFD is governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, which contains no requirement of "generic use". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just so we're clear that it does not mean "a canonical text in Mormonism" in general, but rather a specific one. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know, it is a name of specific entity, like London, New York, Lysistrata (I should create this at some point; it is a comedy), and Betelgeuse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just so we're clear that it does not mean "a canonical text in Mormonism" in general, but rather a specific one. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't it.Wikt allow all book titles for a time? I can see why: it's hard to find an objective criterion (other than date of authorship) that excludes Pearl of Great Price from the dictionary but allows the Iliad and Genesis. My inclination is to delete. I'd also question Liber AL vel Legis. OTOH, something like (e.g.) Book of Shadows probably sees enough generic use to merit keeping (Wiccans write things in their personal books of shadows). Perhaps pluralization is a possible criterion: can one refer to multiple copies of the POGP as "Pearls of Great Price(s)", the way multiple copies of the Bible and Iliad are "Bibles" and "Iliads"? - -sche (discuss) 15:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it is trivially easy to find an unlimited number of objective criteria that differentiate "Pearl of Great Price" and "Iliad" for the purpose of inclusion, albeit irrelevant or uninteresting criteria. An objective criterion that differentiates "Pearl of Great Price" from "Iliad" that I find interesting is that (a) the latter is a single word, and at the same time (b) the single word is not a capitalized common noun optionally prefixed with an article, unlike "The Frogs" by Aristophanes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I came across this lexicon (including the word quad as cultural literature lingo, BTW). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. bd2412 T 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)