Talk:break the buck
Context: “money-market funds”Edit
for Doremítzwr -
i see you have further flushed out the definition; thanks. the only missing thing i see is some reference that this term is, if not uniquely, generally related to "money-market funds".
given my rocky (to me) start* with wickionary, i'm hesitant to edit myself.
- my 2 attempts to create a definition for "break the buck", were, i guess, mysteriously and categorically "deleted" before i could finish creating/revising/flushing it out without any communication to my talk page or some other mechanism. then my query to the help discussion board garnered a terse response (not your helpful ones) "Yes. The entry didn't meet our minimum standards. We now have a good entry. SemperBlotto 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"
--18.104.22.168 11:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I specified that further; is that what you meant? However, I’m not too happy with the (excessive) length of the context tag; hopefully someone else will come along and abbreviate it. BTW, I almost missed this — talk pages aren’t used much on Wiktionary; in future, it would be best if you tried to get my attention via my talk page. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to further modify or revert. I don't think it pays to inflect a long idiom and introduce all the inflected forms. An etymology for an idiom is unnecessary if it doesn't get beyond the meaning of the parts, IMO. Footnotes don't work the same way as in WP and are deprecated. References, OTOH, are encouraged. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I’m afraid I disagreed with a lot of what you did. The full inflexion line is standard and marginally useful (it certainly doesn’t detract from the entry). It’s important (far more so with longer, more complex entries) that our references are given as in-line citations — it is more professional and verifiable, and prævents the misrepræsentation of referees. Their use is discouraged by some because of a technical restriction in rendering separate lists of references in the same entry; however, the English Wiktionary does not have many references, so the cases where this is a practical problem are very few indeed in number. (There can’t be more than 2–3 dozen entries where more than one language section has been referenced with in-line citations…)
Links to pertinent discussionsEdit
etymology - purpose of including parenthetical "break the bank" as part of "break the buck"?Edit
1. i see the etymology now includes a parenthetical "break the bank." i'm not sure what this is attempting to achieve or illustrate. if one is attempting to suggest that "break the buck" evolved off of "break the bank," i question that suggestion. the subject term, "break the buck," has nothing to do with a bank. i don't see "break the buck" as having any stronger relationship to "break the bank" than it does to "break the ice" (or any other "break the" phrase).
- There is no sense of "break" that would make sense with the use of "buck" as the par value of a mutual fund share. "Breaking a buck" would normally mean "break a dollar" or give change for a dollar (which expression may not be in Wiktionary yet. Thanks.). DCDuring TALK 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with DCDuring: The sense of break meant in break the buck is the same as the one in break the bank. If there is another break the… phrase that uses break in this sense, then it may call for an additional sense to be added to our entry for break. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
2. not sure why jaffe's book is identified to "page 110" link takes one to the title page of jaffe's book at google books.
- Page 110 is where the specific reference. It is not always possible to get the specific page depending on the vagaries of Google. DCDuring TALK 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The page to which the citation links is one of Google Book Search’s “phantom hits” — namely one which shows up, with the text, on the results page, but when the link is accessed, yields no image whence the OCR software gleaned the text. Often, these hits show the image one week, but not the next. You can see the quoted work in this search quæry — it’s the fifth hit. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
3. don't understand layout. 2 books are referenced just following definition. 3rd book is listed under "references." is there a subtle difference between the placements?
- One is a footnote for the definition. The others are sources for the specific examples of usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- To expand upon what DCDuring said: Works quoted immediately after a definition (or which appear under a Quotations section) are citations, which are included as examples of usage and to show that a term or sense satisfies our criteria for inclusion; works cited in References sections are included to show that the information we include (usually an etymology or pronunciatory transcription) is supported by an authority of some kind. (Sometimes references are included and the reader must guess or check what information is supported by the referee, which is often easy enough in small, monosemic entries, but less feasible once the amount of information in the entry increases — for which reason I præfer to enter references as in-line citations, so the reader is shown exactly what information is supported by a particular referee.) † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
4. although it's not in my hard copy (probably because it's an older edition), the "bible" of financial terms (at least in my day...1980s-1990s) is/was "Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms" (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow3xAAAACAAJ&dq=dictionary+of+finance+and+investment+terms).--22.214.171.124 07:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The texts of many reference bibles are not available on-line through Google and our volunteers don't necessarily have convenient access to print reference works in all of the fields covered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)