Talk:Poundland
Add topicLatest comment: 29 days ago by Mihia in topic RFD discussion: June–November 2024
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Rfd-sense A British chain of pound shops.
Not notable - should go in the etymology section for the adjective sense. Theknightwho (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. But I hasten to point out, lest newcomers are confused, that WT:CFI has no "notability" criterion and we are not in the habit of using one. WT:COMPANY is unnecessarily terse and conflates the concepts of the entry and the individual sense, so we could definitely tidy up its wording to reflect actual practice. This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right - that was crappy reasoning: the issue is that we don't generally include brands simply because they are brands. Theknightwho (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, WT:BRAND, right. This may actually pass that criterion if people are using "Poundland" as a metaphor for (say) cheapness, where context does not provide sufficient clues to discern the metaphor (see WT:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names). One would need to go cite-hunting. This, that and the other (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other The metaphor sense is really common (to the point I'd argue it's everyday English in the UK), but only attributively, and usually as "Poundland version" or "Poundland-esque" etc etc. However, the literal brand itself should probably be mentioned only in the etymology section. Theknightwho (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, 100% agreed. The entry has also been fixed up a bit since the RFD was opened. I'm back to my original "delete" stance then. This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other The metaphor sense is really common (to the point I'd argue it's everyday English in the UK), but only attributively, and usually as "Poundland version" or "Poundland-esque" etc etc. However, the literal brand itself should probably be mentioned only in the etymology section. Theknightwho (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, WT:BRAND, right. This may actually pass that criterion if people are using "Poundland" as a metaphor for (say) cheapness, where context does not provide sufficient clues to discern the metaphor (see WT:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names). One would need to go cite-hunting. This, that and the other (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't often go in Poundland, but I thought it's a trading name, not a brand. DonnanZ (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Donnanz It's both, and a trade name is arguably a kind of brand by definition, as it's what the business advertises themselves as (i.e. it's how they brand themselves). Plus, in the narrower sense, they do also sell Poundland-branded products, I guess. Theknightwho (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- So if it's both, which name is better known, Poundland or Boots? (See separate RFD). I imagine it's Boots, which has been around for much longer, and also markets its own products (maybe bog rolls even). DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- As a person who lives in the freest country on God's green Earth (America), I'd say "Poundland". I think I've heard the term before in British media, but never "Boots". CitationsFreak (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- @CitationsFreak For context, Boots is the other half of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, and in the UK it has about the same level of brand recognition that Walgreens does in the US. Theknightwho (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a person who lives in the freest country on God's green Earth (America), I'd say "Poundland". I think I've heard the term before in British media, but never "Boots". CitationsFreak (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- So if it's both, which name is better known, Poundland or Boots? (See separate RFD). I imagine it's Boots, which has been around for much longer, and also markets its own products (maybe bog rolls even). DonnanZ (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Donnanz It's both, and a trade name is arguably a kind of brand by definition, as it's what the business advertises themselves as (i.e. it's how they brand themselves). Plus, in the narrower sense, they do also sell Poundland-branded products, I guess. Theknightwho (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right - that was crappy reasoning: the issue is that we don't generally include brands simply because they are brands. Theknightwho (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are we confident that the alleged adjective sense is a true adjective and not an attributive noun? Mihia (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to attributive noun. I don't believe it is truly an adjective. Yes, you can probably find examples of "very Poundland" etc., but the same goes for any brand, e.g. "very Tesco", "very Armani" ... virtually anything. This is a feature of English that does not automatically make these words adjectives, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete brand sense, now that we have it as an attributive noun (which we should keep). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: just a store chain with no reason for inclusion. We do not have entries for Argos (no store chain sense), Lidl, Tesco or Waitrose, nor Subway, Target or Walmart (no proper noun sense), all of which are much bigger. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can I just mention that by simply deleting the noun sense, with no other changes, the overall flow of the entry no longer makes full sense, as the etymology section mentions "chain" but there is no longer any explanation of what this refers to. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)