User talk:Mglovesfun/CFI/1

As far as I can tell, all this would do is add an example for "Proverbs", make it unclear whether the basic rules are "and" or "or", and add "It's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." which basically means nothing. --Yair rand 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The second one is already there, it's not new. I don't know what that's there either. I'd be more than happy to remove it, as people have in the passed used it as an excuse to add anything at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't notice that that was there before. I like the idea of getting rid of the useless bit. Also, it would probably make sense if the words "attested" and "idiomatic" linked to WT:CFI#Attestation and WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Perhaps the first requirement should also end with "and" to be clear that it needs to be both? --Yair rand 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Go head. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is what I humorously call the bucket problem; the fact that it passes under the "all words in all languages" clause, but fails under the "if it is attested and idiomatic clause" (as it's not idiomatic). I suspect other people just ignore this, but it kinda bothers me. 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)— This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs).

The “useless bit” explains the rationale for the two requirements – the basis for the entire guideline.

Is idiomaticity only significant in multi-word terms? CFI#Idiomaticity discusses compounds and prefixes. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 15:37 z

De facto we always keep single words. I'd be quite tempted to nominate (deprecated template usage) spadelike, (deprecated template usage) findable and so on as they're not idiomatic, but I'd get laughed at if I tried. That's what I'm trying to say; whether I've expressed that well or not, that's not for me to say. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)