Template talk:idiomatic


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


Green check.svg

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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


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
KeepΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Return to "idiomatic" page.