Talk:Stonewall
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Beobach972 in topic Stonewall riots
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.
An important historic event, but belongs in Wikipedia. --Keene 12:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Belongs in Wikipedia" is not disputed. Also belongs in Wiktionary. Keep. DAVilla 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- weak keep as Stonewall, but delete as is. --EncycloPetey 15:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Events are not sum-of-parts: Stonewall (the name of an inn?) + riots is not enough to understand the significance of the term. DAVilla 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Stephen, Davilla, you don't give your reasons for keeping this, but I suspect it is because it is the name of a historical event. Good dictionaries have "October Revolution", but not the name of every revolution that has ever occurred. Is this of linguistic interest? Can Wiktionary say anything about it that Wikipedia does not already?
- More to the point, perhaps we want to include "(major) historical events" in the discussion of WS:CFI and proper nouns. — Paul G 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! That needs to be a separate discussion & separate vote. --Connel MacKenzie 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Most dictionaries are paper, and don't include every revolution for that reason — Wiktionary is not paper, we can include this. Keep as-is or at Stonewall. — Beobach972 03:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I half expected this to be deleted already, given that Vietnam War was deleted as well. My reason to include is not that it is a historical event. I couldn't care less what the type of thing is. The point is that it has literary value, which means it is used in literature where people are expected to know what it means. If that's contested then it can be RFV'd. If it's RFD'd then I can only defend its idiomaticity. DAVilla 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)