Template talk:idiomatic

CategoryEdit

Where'd the category go? --Connel MacKenzie 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RFDEdit

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.

---

Template:idiomaticEdit

I'm not really sure what this context is actually meant to convey. Everything made out of several punctuation-separated parts on Wiktionary is considered idiomatic, because it's part of our CFI. So that label seems rather redundant; it could be added to just about anything made out of multiple parts. It would be more noteworthy if a sense were literal ({{&lit}}). Of course, certain senses may be more easily derived from the parts than others, but it does still seem like a rather vague description. —CodeCat 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, there's a difference between what we call idiomatic in terms of WT:CFI and 'idiomatic' in the lexical sense. We use a special sense of idiomatic in WT:CFI that's Wiktionary-only. Keep. Will provide more reasons if necessary. Out of interest, do you actually think this has a chance of failing or is it more about raising awareness about the issue? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a part of both. Even if it is kept, I still hope that we can clarify somewhat when we consider something an "idiom" and when not. I mean, would give up be considered an idiom, and why or why not? —CodeCat

Keep —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• RFD-passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)