Talk:Molotov cocktail
I've removed the "obsolete" definition of a self-igniting British variant. It seems as it's merely one of a myriad of variants of Molotov cocktail "recipes" and it has no citation.
Don't know what else to say except that it doesn't belong in a dictionary.
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense: (obsolete) A similar incendiary but made stoppered and containing phosphorus dissolved in benzene which would self-ignite when smashed and the contents exposed to air. Issued to civilians in Britain during World War II.
It certainly does seem separate to the first sense so it's just a question of existence. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Added here. I've had a look at Kevin Ryde (talk • contribs) and as a whole his edits seem ok, just the most recent is 2007. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the reason that this should be a completely separate definition. It appears to be a rather specific encyclopedic description of a variant of the basic concept of a Molotov cocktail. To me it makes as little as sense as having several separate definitions for technical variants of firebombs, depending on their contents or specific type of design.
- 90.129.132.22 22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (Peter Isotalo logged off)
- This is an RFV, not an RFD. If you think that the definition doesn't constitute a separate sense, you can nominate it for RFD. --WikiTiki89 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this sense in attested now, if you see the 1976, 2008, and 2011 quotations in Citations:Molotov cocktail. I'm inclined, however, to agree with Peter Isotalo that the distinction between the entry's two current senses is very minor; if they are both included, then it may be difficult to argue why separate senses for these eight recipes ought not also to be added. OTOH, sticky bomb seems to be a synonym of the historical British sense only (see the 2008 quotation), so these two senses may both be worth keeping, but reduced to subsenses of a broader "simple incendiary device" sense. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I would RFD the sense. --WikiTiki89 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just did. It appears I could have been linked to WFD as soon as there was disagreement, but instead I was blocked for "vandalism" without discussion or warning a few minutes before this was posted. I've been editing here for a few years, but I have never had these kinds of problems removing irrelevant content before. Not exactly an ideal form of conflict resolution.
- 193.181.1.138 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- RFV passed. An RFD discussion led to the two senses being merged. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The second definition of this entry appears to be nothing but a technical variant on the basic concept of a simple bomb consisting of a bottle filled with flammable material designed to explode on impact. Defining a highly specific type of design as a separate dictionary definition would be akin to having separate definitions for firebombs for numerous technical solution. And as pointed out at WT:RFV#Molotov cocktail, it would be difficult to motivate that numeros other "recipes" for Molotov cocktails should not have separate definitions as well.
193.181.1.138 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (Peter Isotalo as IP-user due to vandalism block for this edit)
- Delete. Difference is merely technical. Same basic idea. Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. As was already mentioned somewhere, different recipes for cakes don't need separate definitions. --WikiTiki89 01:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Broaden the first sense to encompass the second, and then delete the second. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. First def is particularly the case. DAVilla 11:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've merged the definitions. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)