Talk:no-life
Add topicRFV discussion
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense. "Describing a manner of accomplishing a task at the cost of social interactions." I'll be damned if I know what that means. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Meaningless - I would have just removed it. (Nothing obvious on Google book search) SemperBlotto 08:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we had citations, we would probably conclude that this is attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I think so, but ironically it's hard to refute definitions when they're poor, because it's ambiguous what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- In this case the intent of the contributor was to not have the wording be identical to the noun, but probably not to defeat our RfD. Even as poorly worded as it is the sense seems quite close to the noun.
- I've wondered about how to address the general problem without speedy deletion. Perhaps we need some process for tagging poor definitions. An alternative is to insert a good definition that captures the apparent intended sense of a badly worded definition and then insert an rfd-sense or rfd-redundant tag. All of this is to make sure we don't miss something and to avoid looking too arbitrary.
- Also, shouldn't this be
{{idiom}}. Hyphenated words like this can be purely SoP, though this one isn't, IMO. We wouldn't want to have every single non-idiomatic word of the form "no-X", would we? DCDuring TALK 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I think so, but ironically it's hard to refute definitions when they're poor, because it's ambiguous what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
RFV failed, adjective section removed. —RuakhTALK 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)