Talk:whitelisted
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mglovesfun in topic Deletion debate
Deletion debate edit
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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfd-redundant. Having the property of being in a whitelist, a list of sources to be accepted (the opposite of blacklisted).
Isn't this redundant to {{past of|whitelist}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I found some uses of it as an adjective rather than just a verb past and revised the defn with a cite. Please re-check. Facts707 08:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Attributive use alone doesn't make it an adjective. For it to be an adjective it would be necessary to show it as a predicate after "become", modified by "very" or "too", or as gradable or comparative. I'm skeptical. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- But not all adjectives are gradable, but we always keep the ones that don't have other senses. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've added one cite where it's a predicate after "become"; one cite where it's an unreduced stative passive (like "the window is closed"; unlike "the window is opened", which means "___ opens the window"); and one cite that uses "to add whitelisted sites" rather than "to whitelist sites". I think that all three are suggestive of adjectivality. What do you think? —RuakhTALK 08:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cited, I think. I found two more "become" citations. I don't know how to distinguish a past participle from an adjective ending in -ed after a form of "be" in general. The static passive is good, but that is not generally applicable to these. I don't think the "add whitelisted sites" quote is adequate for the distinction. Why do you think so? The other attributive cites are similarly not useful for adjective attestation. This is one place where I am satisfied that we have adequate criteria for PoS distinction. Would that the same could be said for other cases. I will add the static passive to my list of criteria. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cited, should be kept IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cited, I think. I found two more "become" citations. I don't know how to distinguish a past participle from an adjective ending in -ed after a form of "be" in general. The static passive is good, but that is not generally applicable to these. I don't think the "add whitelisted sites" quote is adequate for the distinction. Why do you think so? The other attributive cites are similarly not useful for adjective attestation. This is one place where I am satisfied that we have adequate criteria for PoS distinction. Would that the same could be said for other cases. I will add the static passive to my list of criteria. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Attributive use alone doesn't make it an adjective. For it to be an adjective it would be necessary to show it as a predicate after "become", modified by "very" or "too", or as gradable or comparative. I'm skeptical. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe just cleanup instead of deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)