Talk:Pong
Add topicDeletion debate
[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
Specific video game; not used generically. Equinox ◑ 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pong is undeniably cool... I usually favor deletion in these cases, though there's nothing in CFI which overtly suggests this should be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO it's a brand. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this should make it as a brand name at RfV. It made a big impression at the time and crept into literature and the popular press. See w:Pong. If our interpretation of the brand name test can't accommodate this there may be something wrong with our interpretation or the test itself. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am happy to move to RFV if that is the general consensus. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, move to RFV. If it can be shown to meet the CFI for brand names, it should stay in. bd2412 T 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am happy to move to RFV if that is the general consensus. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this should make it as a brand name at RfV. It made a big impression at the time and crept into literature and the popular press. See w:Pong. If our interpretation of the brand name test can't accommodate this there may be something wrong with our interpretation or the test itself. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO it's a brand. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Moving to RFV now. Equinox ◑ 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
RFV discussion
[edit]The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
Moved from RFD; earlier discussion follows:
Specific video game; not used generically. Equinox ◑ 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pong is undeniably cool... I usually favor deletion in these cases, though there's nothing in CFI which overtly suggests this should be deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO it's a brand. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this should make it as a brand name at RfV. It made a big impression at the time and crept into literature and the popular press. See w:Pong. If our interpretation of the brand name test can't accommodate this there may be something wrong with our interpretation or the test itself. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am happy to move to RFV if that is the general consensus. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, move to RFV. If it can be shown to meet the CFI for brand names, it should stay in. bd2412 T 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am happy to move to RFV if that is the general consensus. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this should make it as a brand name at RfV. It made a big impression at the time and crept into literature and the popular press. See w:Pong. If our interpretation of the brand name test can't accommodate this there may be something wrong with our interpretation or the test itself. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO it's a brand. Equinox ◑ 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
RFV discussion begins here:
- I have found at three adjectives formed from "Pong": "Pong-style", "Pong-ish", and "Pong-type" which to me illustrate that Pong is used as a prototype of a class. I think the definition should be amended to indicate the class attributes, probably "simple", "monochrome", etc. I don't know whether this is good enough to satisfy WT:BRAND, but slavish conformity to rules is so last year. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Almost generic by this point. Struck. DAVilla 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)