Talk:Brooklyn Bridge

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.

---

Brooklyn Bridge

I would've speedied it just like the other bridges the anonymous user created, but I feel that this particular one needs a more thorough discussion. -- Liliana • 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why's that then? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it is part of two collocations/constructs that are idioms or nearly so: "could sell someone/try to sell someone/buy the Brooklyn Bridge" and "to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge". The Bridge being unsellable, the member of the first set refer to someone who is persuasive, untrustworthy, or gullible respectively. The second expression is commonly used in expressions like "If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you jump too?". DCDuring TALK 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK we (or where I come from we do) say "if X told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?" Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We have London Bridge. Either we keep both or we delete both. What is the reason for keeping them? (I hope there is one :-/ ) -- ALGRIF talk 13:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That one was created by the very same user, if you haven't noticed. -- Liliana • 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have solution for 'names of specific entities'. It would seem very reasonable to keep entries such as France and Germany, totally unreasonable to keep the names of the specific shops in my area of Leeds, but stuff like notable landmarks like Big Ben, World Trade Center falls in the middle of this. I have no solution better than the current one, RFD anything dubious and have it go purely on voting, which comes down to who bothers to vote and what mood they're in. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The only solution is to make a clear difference between names and words/terms belonging to the vocabulary of the language. Excelsior Hotel, Third Avenue or Winston Churchill are names, but are never considered as words belonging to the vocabulary of the English language, while town names (such as London (Londres in French) or New York are considered as words of the language. Lmaltier 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to say "... are considered part of the language", but really you (and others) consider it part of the language. Also you could argue that some single words aren't part of a given language; product and company names for example, or names of films and books like Ghost (1980s film). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is another example, names of films or books are names, but are not considered by anybody as belonging to the vocabulary of the language (except, maybe, when they are single words existing only as this name?). Lmaltier 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And some editors agree that something belongs to the vocabulary of the language, but want to delete it nonetheless (see below crankcase emission control system). This is a good discussion we should have. Lmaltier 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Various quotations:

• Hockney's bridge, like the Brooklyn Bridge of culture, is fashioned from myriad juxtaposed images, each somehow in conflict yet also in accord with the others.
• Galata Bridge, to the left, is the Brooklyn Bridge of Constantinople and, to the visitor, also is a veritable museum of peoples and costumes.
• he was going to detail a special detachment to guard Kasr el Nil, the Brooklyn Bridge of Egypt, which crosses the Nile from Cairo to the residential suburb of Gazireh.

It's part of the language. Keep. DAVilla 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Keep, simply a great analysis here by DAVilla (talk • contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 06:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)