Talk:bein'

RFD result

From this revision:

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.

---

bein'

Tagged for speedy, but I'm not sure where Wiktionary is on these, now. --Connel MacKenzie 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not even worthy of inclusion here. Are we going to add every single example of an 'ing' word being shortened. --Dmol 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep this and every other single example of an 'ing' word being shortened, if that's the right word. (It's the same number of characters and often the same number of sounds.) Seeing as we'll probably have thousands, we probably need some sort of template for this, like {{-in' of|be|being}} or something (but with the second parameter bein' optional if it's just the first parameter plus (deprecated template usage) -ing). An etymology template like {{-in' etym}} might be nice as well, producing something simple, like "See (deprecated template usage) -in'." —Ruakh_TALK 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This seems like a BP issue or even a vote. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Kevin Rector 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Ruakh, or at the very least until there is policy consensus that these do not meet the CFI. Thryduulf 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep! Mark as {{eye dialect}}, I think, or perhaps with a new template per Ruakh.—msh210℠ 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this (as a general issue) should be put forward as a formal vote. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of six different up-or-down votes we could possibly take:

• Do the current CFI allow for -in' entries, when attested?
• Do the current CFI allow for such entries, even if not attested, as long as the -ing form is attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly allowed, when attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly allowed, when the -ing for is attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly barred, even when attested?
• Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly barred, when not attested, even if the -ing form is attested?

Perhaps we should have a straw poll as to the first two before we do any formal vote on any of them, just so as to get a feeling of what people think the current CFI say. (My own feeling about the first two questions is "yes" and "no", respectively, for whatever that's worth.)—msh210℠ 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That straw poll sounds like a good idea - but for the beer parlour not here. Thryduulf 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See BP discussion at WT:BP#-in.27_forms. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) modified negligibly—msh210℠ 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No consensus: kept.—msh210℠ 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)