Last modified on 28 May 2014, at 18:22

Talk:mushroom

  • Discussion
Return to "mushroom" page.

the new Dutch spelling is "paddenstoel", before it was "paddestoel"

RFD discussion: January–May 2014Edit

TK archive icon.svg

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

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.


  1. Containing or being made of mushrooms.
    mushroom soup
  2. Resembling a mushroom by shape or appearance.
    mushroom cloud

Adjective section; tagged but not listed. Both usexes show attributive use of the noun, but the second seems idiomatic. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete both. Not comparable, etc. and oxtail and turtle aren't adjectives just because you can make soup from them. Equinox 23:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that mushroom is not an adjective and should be deleted, but I wonder if the translations here for mushroom as a noun modifier can be tacked on to the translations for the noun (and suitably marked). Donnanz (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that can be done. Brass shows one way it can be done, namely by having a separate table for translations of the attributive uses of the noun; cork shows another way, namely having translations of both the subjective / objective and the 'attributive' uses of the noun in one table, labelling the latter. (See here for some discussion of the concepts.) - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete the first sense per DCDuring or, if we wanted to be procedurally correct, move to RFV, since citations that would prove 'mushroom' to be adjectival could exist, even though I think they don't. (E.g. citations of the form "he added the whole can and the soup ended up being a bit too mushroom", "a mushroomer soup than I'm used to", etc. would support an adjective POS section.) Keep/move to RFV (and modify as needed) the second sense, for which citations are more likely to exist (given that Widsith has just provided a few). - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 10:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We could just let it sit here for a month, giving advocates the time an RfV would provide. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Mushroom can be used as a noun modifier, but I would choose mushroomy as an adjective. Donnanz (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the first one, probably keep the second. The OED has it in a slightly modified form (‘Resembling a mushroom in speed of growth or brief duration of existence’) with quotes like ‘He has..a knack of versifying, which has pleased the German ladies and got him a mushroom reputation’, and ‘This source of Belém's wealth was two thousand miles and more away from Belém itself; and the mushroom city of Manaus quickly inserted itself, in between’ where the use is at least moving towards being a true adjective. It's still possible to interpret this as attributive noun use though if we want to. However from Google books I also see:
    Neither Mr Robinson nor Mr Price were of a very mushroom character
    Some Christian churches are said to be of very mushroom growth
    I think it improbable, for instance, that Spenlow, a rather mushroom recruit, would have been in a position to receive an articled pupil at all
  • so it looks like it might be all right. Ƿidsiþ 09:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
    The gradability evidence you present looks good to me.
The true adjective usage is definitely not common. Should we mark the adjective sense as 'rare' or would that confuse our normal users even more than they are already confused by our treatment of attributive use of nouns (which I support)? DCDuring TALK 15:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
There's not mushroom for discussion here (sorry!) Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody said it was. A "round ball" isn't made of rounds of ammunition. So what? Equinox 15:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
And "dragon fire" isn't made of dragons. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Simple solution; never take a Purplebackpack89 comment as an informed contribution. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not a mushroom cloud is made of mushrooms is quite germane to whether or not an additional definition is needed or not. Equinox, I don't quite understand why you put down almost every comment I make in defense of perfectly legitimate definitions Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Because almost every comment is illogical (unless you think we need "round ball" and "dragon fire" per the above rebuttals). Equinox 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If dragon fire comes from some source other than a dragon, then, yes, we do need that definition. As for round ball, round is an adjective in that sense rather than a noun, so that's completely irrelevant. Neither example convinces me that mushroom as it pertains to the shape should be deleted, sorry. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll tell you what's illogical: Saying that because we keep one definition, we have to create another definition, one that's 10x more ridiculous. That's classic slippery slope fallacy. The outcome of one RfD is distinct from the outcome of any other RfD Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" is so spurious as make me think you don't understand basic lexicogaphic/semantic concepts like polysemy. You have participated in these discussions for quite some time and we seem to have to repeat the same reasoning over and over. But you do not even seem to argue against the reasoning, rather you repeat your rejected assertions. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Polysemy would seem to be in favor of keeping these definitions. "Being a mushroom" and "Being shaped like a mushroom" are two different meanings. Therefore, there should be two different definitions. I don't see what the big deal is here. The problem you, Equinox and Mglovesfun seem to have is that I think the bar should be a little lower for inclusion than you do. So what? I'm entitled to vote based on my lower bar. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not about a "bar"; it is about your illogic and failure to respond to counterarguments. Equinox 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Your argument has been "Well, you're illogical" and "Well, if we keep this, we'll have to create this other thing". The first one is an opinion, not an argument. The second one I've responded to above as not being germane because each RfD is a separate entity. My keep vote is as valid as your delete vote Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
"My keep vote is as valid as your delete vote" Contrary to popular belief, it is not. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Those who close RfD discussions do not give equal weight to all votes, nor should they. They tend to dismiss unreasoned votes and those that ignore WT:CFI. Your arguments don't quite descend to that level, though it is hard to have a discussion if the other party neither acknowledges error not defends the position others argue is erroneous.
'"Being a mushroom" and "Being shaped like a mushroom" are two different meanings. Therefore, there should be two different definitions.' Thank you for stating your reasoning.
There are many possible semantic relationships between a noun and another noun modifying it attributively:
'mushroom soup' is a soup (made) 'of' mushrooms
'mushroom compost' is compost 'for' mushrooms
'mushroom cloth' is cloth 'for' (cleaning without damaging) mushrooms
'mushroom growth' is growth 'by' mushrooms OR
growth 'like' the rapid growth of mushrooms
'mushroom farming' is farming 'of' mushrooms
'mushroom eater' is one who eats mushrooms
In each case mushroom has a different relationship to the noun modified. The meanings correspond to plausible relationships often reflected in different prepositions or, possibly, a 'case' (as in 'mushroom eater'). This is almost universal for constructing the meaning of noun phrases that have a noun used attributively. 'Like' in shape is just another instance, similar to the second instance of 'mushroom growth'.
This does not say we definitely should not have the second sense of mushroom#Adjective, but it does undercut your argument. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It's misleading to call these "noun phrases". In other Germanic languages these are compounds, so they must be considered compounds in English too. They're really single terms, the space doesn't suddenly make it a phrase. The relationship is generally that of a genitive, and all the examples you gave boil down to that. Soup, compost, cloth, growth, farming, eater of mushrooms. —CodeCat 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Although I agree that they are compounds (you can't say they aren't noun phrases because a single noun is still a noun phrase), I think it's wrong to use other Germanic languages as an argument. --WikiTiki89 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
User:DCDuring, there is one major difference between shape and the others: namely that the others can be used with a lot of words, and shape is generally used with much fewer. For example, take "mushroom eater". Any other food can be substituted for mushroom and it would be a valid phrase. Very few foods are discussed in regards to shape. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
My rebuttal to that is that "For example, take 'mushroom [cloud]'. Any other [object] can be substituted for mushroom and it would be a valid phrase." 'Flower cloud', 'rat cloud', 'car cloud', 'potato chip cloud', have all referred to cloud shapes rather than cloud compositions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


  • I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say we can't take your votes seriously PBP, even though MG may have worded that a little harsher than intended. And that's not an attack, it's a statement of fact: even with the best of intentions, we cannot take you seriously. And how can we when you seem to make a hollow, empty statement like "a mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" instead of a rational, well-reasoned and well-thought-out argument? It makes one wonder whether you've seen and/or compared how other dictionaries have criteria for including their terms and senses. A statement like "a mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" shows a lack of understanding about Wiktionary; it's like the guy who signs up for an account because he saw an article about him about to be deleted and votes "Keep I like it" as his only edit (if we're going to take an example to appeal to your Wikipedian sense in any meaningful way) and then walks away with no willingness to contribute to anything else. And besides, we already have an entry at mushroom cloud, which is a noun, so it's completely irrelevant to whether or not we should keep or delete this particular sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Dude, have you noticed how many votes that are just "Delete" without any reason at all on this page? Or delete with a rationale of 3 words or less? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, some of you may have missed the subtle undertones of my comments. The undertone of my comments were "if these definitions are deleted, there are some things with the word 'mushroom' in them that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions. Therefore, the definitions should be kept" Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
More acceptable, though you'll have to explain what you mean by "there are some things... that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions", otherwise this is a circular argument: i.e. if we delete a sense it will be missing, therefore it should be kept. And I've already given the noun sense of mushroom cloud in a separate entry as rebuttal to your claims, so you can try to address that. Maybe you should try not being so 'subtle' next time. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
"Mushroom cloud" isn't the adjective "mushroom" with the noun "cloud", though; otherwise, you could say "this cloud is mushroom". (Compare "green door; this door is green".) It's a separate noun phrase. Equinox 00:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is you can't say "this cloud is a mushroom" either, because, while that would be grammatically correct, it's not correct in terms of meaning, except as a metaphor. Also, is a mushroom cloud the only thing that is referred to as being shaped like a mushroom but isn't an actual mushroom? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Wait, so now you lack reading comprehension as well? DCDuring pointed out above that mushroom body was a legitimate sense. And you've failed to provide any counterarguments to my rebuttals above, especially the fact that mushroom cloud is already a noun entry, so it invalidates your argument that we would need to have an adjective sense on that basis. You've also failed to counter my rebuttal further up above that almost anything put in front of 'cloud' will refer to the cloud shape, not its composition. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You also can't say "this soup is a mushroom", yet you seemed fine with removing that sense? —RuakhTALK 00:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Because there's actual mushrooms in mushroom soup, but no actual mushrooms in a mushroom cloud. Note that another editor voted delete 1, keep 2 above. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
WTF? There are no actual tractors in a tractor part, either. We're back to "so what?". Equinox 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
What do tractor parts have to do with mushroom clouds/anything else shaped like mushrooms? Again, bringing to bear words that don't really matter to this discussion. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It was an analogy for a comparable case, that has the same noun+noun arrangement. But you evidently don't apply any logic to your RFD decisions so I give up at this point. You may have noticed that most other people feel the same way about your caprices. Equinox 01:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that they feel that way, but I feel that it would be better for this project if certain things were kept. This definition of mushroom is one of them. Call that capricious if you will (though I would be offended if, taken in whole, you considered my argument at ride the circuit above capricious or illogical). But if there's one thing I'm consistent on, it's that analogies have no place in RfD discussions. Just as you find the various arguments I've put forth in this discussion illogical, I find the use of analogies illogical. I've said it twice before, but hear it again: just because we keep one entry doesn't mean we have to keep or create something else. You think I'm illogical, I think you're illogical. Our votes cancel each other out Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Votes don't cancel each other out on that basis, otherwise all the votes here will be null. His just makes more sense, and will have more weight, even if we happen to disagree. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's true that "just because we keep one entry doesn't mean we have to keep or create something else", but that hardly justifies banning analogies as a mechanism for understanding the language we're trying to document. Just because you want to forbid one use of analogies doesn't mean you have to forbid all uses. (Also, the reason that you and Equinox find each other illogical is that you are illogical and he is not. The facts don't cancel out, they add up.) —RuakhTALK 02:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Logic goes against common practice and should be permanently banned from Wiktionary. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So should people ganging up on the same editor to call him "illogical". Oh, wait, it already is! (By policies that urge commenting on arguments rather than the editor itself in forums as these) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't see a problem with calling your arguments illogical and irrelevant to this discussion. I've yet to see Equinox call you 'stupid' or anything like that. (Though I'm pretty sure he's tempted to do so right now.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, what have policies got to do with anything? They only exist to give new editors a false sense of security. Otherwise, they just choke up bandwidth. Editors are supposed to agree with common practice unconditionally. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I just want to point out that Purpleback89 is now making some real arguments that can be taken seriously. Purpleback, I'm glad that you have listened to our advice. I still disagree though that the shape sense merits a separate definition, although I think that we should make sure that the stereotypical shape of a mushroom is included in the primary definition. --WikiTiki89 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the formulation PBP put forth in response to my post was at a minimum much more acceptable this time around, but there is still room for improvement. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it's just "at a minimum". He's actively arguing his case, even if you disagree with it. --WikiTiki89 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I just think a formulation like "if these definitions are deleted, there are some things with the word 'mushroom' in them that can't adequately be described by the remaining definitions. Therefore, the definitions should be kept" is better than "Keep #2 A mushroom cloud isn't made of mushrooms" and I explained why above. It's easier to take him more seriously if uses the first formulation.TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this RFD but interested in seeing if an interesting way of translating attributive nouns is developed or suggested. For example in Russian "mushroom" (noun) is гриб (grib) but an adjective (of or related to mushrooms) is грибно́й (gribnój), so a "mushroom soup" is "грибной суп" (gribnój sup). Most Russian nouns can have adjectives derived from them. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Closed accordingly. Adjective sense 1 deleted, sense 2 kept for lack of consensus to delete, and marked as rare. bd2412 T 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)