Talk:Sandy Lane

RFD discussion: June–July 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Sandy Lane

Rfd-sense A road name in various localities, such as Ham in Richmond upon Thames.

We've previously deleted all road names that don't have figurative or metonymic senses, but @Donnanz insists this is different because that only applied to "specific roads, which this sense isn't meant to be". However, this would effectively set the precedent that any road name used by 2+ roads would pass WT:CFI, which isn't an interpretation I've ever heard before, or something I'd support. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete this sense per User:Theknightwho. Benwing2 (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: CFI doesn’t provide for the exception suggested by Donnanz. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am personally okay with road names. They are lexically useful content, and we might want to revise CFI. Inqilābī 07:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• As the nominator objects to the sense, I would like to replace the sense with a usage note. I tried that, but the nominator reverted it. You can't win with some less-than-helpful users. DonnanZ (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Donnanz I did that because usage notes are not for additional senses, which is what definitions are for. I suggest you stop making personal attacks against me, and get on with making entries. Theknightwho (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  What the nominator does not realise is the entry would never have been created if it wasn't for the place names. Apparently there are two more which need to be looked at. I don't see any harm in recording that it is also a road name, in fact some places may be named after roads. I can see now that a usage note, or etymology, is the best way of recording that, and not as a sense. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The sense is not in line with CFI as it currently stands. If @Donnanz or @Inqilabi wish to start a fresh formal vote to amend the CFI they are welcome to do so, but until then policy should be followed. I am not in favour of attempts to circumvent it, for example, through usage notes. The whole point of having policies is that they should be respected as there is a consensus for them. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The nominator saw red when I reverted his/her edit, and slapped an RFD-sense on it before I had a chance to think of anything else, like a usage note. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: frankly, it is not productive to speculate about any motive an editor may or may not have when they are challenging an entry on the basis that it is potentially not in line with policy, as it is any editor's right to do. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. All I can do is ensure that similar cases in future entries are not treated as senses. There may not be any more, however. DonnanZ (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz If what you mean by this is that you're going to keep mis-using usage notes to sneak in senses that don't pass WT:CFI, I should probably draw this to the attention of the people who are inevitably going to be forced to clean it up: @Benwing2 @Surjection @Chuck Entz @Vininn126 @Thadh @Fenakhay @PUC. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Misuse of usage notes? That was a waste of effort pinging all and sundry. As I said above, there are no more in the pipeline. DonnanZ (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the least that can be done without any breach of policy is to add a quotation for that sense in the Citations mainspace. Until we revise CFI to include road senses which aren’t permitted as of now. Inqilābī 16:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Given the comments above, I think one of the supporters of including more roads should start a BP discussion (not about any user, but) about this policy question, of how much support there is for including more street names (beyond the figuratively-used ones that are included now), and what criteria (beyond figurative use) people could agree on. (Since it's come up, we might as well also ask, if people don't want them as senses, how people feel about including lane names as usage notes.) Perhaps there is appetite to change policy.
If there isn't, I remarked in the section above about #Colon_Street that if a user is (admittedly) persistently trying to sneak in things they know are policy-noncompliant, I think if we are in the position of needing to remove the user from the Autopatroller user group so their edits show up in the patrol log again. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Theknightwho (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: Usage notes are mentioned twice in CFI, but there is nothing banning them from use anywhere, let alone where road names are involved. Re Colon Street, which still survives, and Broadmead mentioned there, I was never guilty of removing a category, as the entry history proves. I added one for Bristol, but the Named roads category was never there until you added it. DonnanZ (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, there is no entry for Fifth Avenue in New York. Is it idiomatic enough for inclusion? DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: what is the idiomatic sense asserted? You're well aware of our verification requirements—can you find at least three qualifying quotations? — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: It's not for me to decide or create. I am merely asking if it's idiomatic, any entry would be better coming from, say, a New Yorker. DonnanZ (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: my point is, if you think it may be idiomatic, why don't you try and find the evidence for it? We can all speculate, but at the end of the day someone has to do the grunt work and locate qualifying quotations. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can come up with the idea, and be happy to leave the legwork to another user. As we have a general election around the corner, does that compare with a politician's promise? DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something to do with luxury? CitationsFreak (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as worse than useless. It's not helpful to any hypothetical user. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Failed according to WT:CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that, rather than just acquiesce. There is some unfinished business though. DonnanZ (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)