Last modified on 8 March 2010, at 01:49

Talk:poke

Return to "poke" page.

Regarding the noun definition, I don't think it's archaic (yet), but it may be regional. According to dictionary.com it's most common in Southern US, and is also used in Scotland. I've seen it used in Western stories (a poke of gold). Ortonmc 18:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Looks like the poke (as a verb) 2nd definition is wrong (either it needs ',' or ':', or you are using poke inside the definition)

--88.22.44.251 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request 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.


poke

Redundant sense. Was it entered only because of the derived term poker (a fireplace poker)? While it obviously isn't a separate sense now, it is unclear if it ever was. If so, that belongs in the Etymology, not entered as a redundant definition. Right? --Connel MacKenzie 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Not the root sense, and not meaningfully distinct; ergo, remove. (this does turn up in Webster's New World, probably others as well; but not in any way that suggests a meaningfully independent sense.)-- Visviva 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd keep. I don't use a pointed stick or finger to stir up our fire. I use a riddle stick which is not pointed. Translations and synonyms will be different.--Dmol 17:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Ordering of etymsEdit

Reply to Mglovesfun's edit summary: " 11:56, 26 February 2010 Mglovesfun (Talk | contribs) (4,461 bytes) (let's have the most modern meaning first) "

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in some Wiktionary guideline that's it's sort of a policy to order defs chronologically by etymology. I think that's the most sensible way to do it.

I just accidentally made a bit of a mess of the entry due to the weird non-chronological ordering as well as different etymologies being combined. Sorry about that, I'm about to fix that now, but the only way that looks sensible & helpful to me is chronological ordering.--TyrS 01:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)