Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Words whose meanings changed when people misunderstood them in context


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete from Wikipedia. Please email me if Wiktionary actually wants this and has not already transferred it over. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Words whose meanings changed when people misunderstood them in context


Lets see, unsourced, indiscriminate list of incomplete dicdefs, no stated criteria for inclusion other than the subjective "words whose meanings changed when people misunderstood them in context"  Donald Albury  00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. You could easily fit this into Wiktionary.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or delete - either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsalvageably POV. As evidenced by scientists adopting the word "habitat" being classified as a misunderstanding. -Amarkov blahedits 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Among other things, I am less confident than the author that the shift in meaning of these words constituted a "misunderstanding" rather than a creative or literary appropriation of the terms. Allon Fambrizzi 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Delete Unsalvagable original research. -Elmer Clark 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's all unsourced OR- transwikiing would just lower the quality of Wiktionary. -- Kicking222 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. wikipediatrix 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete interesting but unsourced OR. Danny Lilithborne 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR †he Bread  05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Intersting and useful but not quite encyclopedic. Atlantis Hawk  05:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to Another Wiki not really an encyclopedic article.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced original research. J I P  | Talk 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; delete or edit any lines which you think are wrong. This is all provable from good dictionaries. This sort of shift in meaning of words is an integral part of the study of semantics and etymology and the history of languages. Anthony Appleyard 07:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Semantics and etymology do not need articles like this to remonstrate a particular point. Not encyclopedic and fails WP:OR, and has a little POV problem too. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 08:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge This is standard in any class on semantics. It should be merged into the article on semantics, or it should have more introduction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is actually a very interesting subject, should be sourced not scrapped. --Howrealisreal 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary per Howrealisreal. --Lmblackjack21 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - This is the prime example of a transwikicational thingymajig. .V. 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete every entry which is unreferenced made-up-on-the-spot folk etymology. Edison 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above. --- RockMFR 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary Transwiki Connection Next Exit per above material. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - subjective rubbish/original research. Pete Fenelon 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced statements may be deleted on sight, this article should be no different as the total is not greater than the sum of its parts. -THB 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete These are pretty neat linguistic borrowing trivia, but they fall into different categories: mistaken loan-translations, shortening, meaning transfer in English over time... they just don't make up a single category of meaning change. Jd2718 01:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. ← A NAS  Talk? 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not worth transwikifying. If folk etymology is deleted, there's nothing left. DGG 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.