Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Category talk:en:Named roads. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Category talk:en:Named roads, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Category talk:en:Named roads in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Category talk:en:Named roads you have here. The definition of the word Category talk:en:Named roads will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofCategory talk:en:Named roads, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
CFI says "roads and streets ... may only be attested through figurative use", but many of the roads in Category:en:Named roads do not appear to have any figurative senses or citations.
List 1 - Just roads
Each of these entries has a sense that just refers to one particular road in one particular place. Unless we can add figurative senses for them and cite these senses, CFI says they must go.
Note: I removed Alcan from this list as I realized it is slang, not the proper name of the road.
List 2 - Neighbourhoods named after a road they contain
Each of these entries has a sense that refers to a particular road and the neighbourhood surrounding it. I thought it would be worth treating these separately, in case it could be argued that the neighbourhood counts as a figurative sense. But perhaps the fact that there are so many shows that the name of a road being used to refer to the surrounding area is just a feature of English, not something unique to these roads.
In addition to omitting terms with figurative senses like Broadway, I've omitted several others that probably deserve to be RFDed, but are not as cut-and-dry, in order to keep this as straightforward as possible.
In my reading, CFI does not quite say what you say it says. In my reading, CFI says "Most ... roads and streets ... may only be attested through figurative use", but many of the roads in Category:en:Named roads ... On this basis, I have avoided rfd for some of these in the past: "Most" seemed to be a door to something. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative The full sentence is, "Most manmade structures, including buildings, airports, ports, bridges, canals, dams, tunnels, individual roads and streets, as well as gardens, parks, and beaches may only be attested through figurative use." I read this as "Most manmade structures, including all ... individual roads and streets...", but I do see how it can be read as "Most manmade structures, which include..." - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 15:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. First, we agree that "Most" means that there is some kind of exception. I am saying that the "Most" means that there are some special individual instances within the following categories of manmade structures that are allowable even without figurative senses (though I don't know what those criteria are). You seem to be saying that the "Most" is taking about categories or types of manmade structures, and hence there are whole categories (perhaps very limited categories) of manmade structures that are allowed as entries. Either way, I think the practical result will be somewhat similar; the real question is: What is the "Most" practically meant to allow, according to the people who wrote this sentence? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: the preceding sentence of the policy is: "All place names not listed above shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements." I think it's clear that individual roads and streets can only be included if used in a figurative sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
As I have read it, the sentence you quote here merely speaks to the requirements for non-manmade geographical terms (emphasizing that the non-man made geographical terms have to follow WT:ATTEST) and does not enter the question of manmade structures. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I'm afraid that's an inaccurate reading. The list before that sentence includes the man-made structures "Human settlements: cities, towns, villages, etc." and "Districts and neighborhoods of cities and towns", so "ll place names not listed above" clearly isn't restricted to geographical terms for only non-man-made things. Moreover, the vote which led to that portion of WT:CFI was specifically intended to resolve, among other things, the issue of whether street names without any figurative sense should be allowed. See, for example, "Talk:Aldersgate Street" and the other discussions linked at "Wiktionary:Votes/2021-02/Expanding CFI for place names". — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, I will have to reread those rules and this material later on. Sorry for any confusion! I am neither for or against any position on any of these issues. This will be my final post on this issue. God bless. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Muswell Hill is also a main road up to the suburb, but was never labelled as such, so the moral here seems to be to never use Category:en:Named roads, which has only 60 entries anyway. What a shame. Personally, I have been quite selective, and think most of these should survive, particularly those of historical interest - I think Fosse Way and Burma Road come into this category. Thankfully some weren't targeted. DonnanZ (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that if a road has lent its name to an entire district or neighbourhood, it can be retained as a geographical name (with the definition altered to mention that). — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think there are some obvious keeps (Main Street, Wall Street) having clear figurative senses. As for the rest, the main question in my mind as to whether we should keep names of specific entities such as streets are "is there significant lexical information to be contained in the entry" (e.g. translations, etymology, usage notes). For streets there may be an etymology, though probably not a very interesting etymology (better for Wikipedia), not many will have translations, they generally aren't used in interesting ways. So I would not include most street names unless there is figurative use. I feel the same way about towns and cities, and individual people. TheDaveRoss12:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, you were responsible for many surname entries. Surnames are, of course, used for place names, so the two go hand in hand. DonnanZ (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think they are distinct, since a surname is a "common" proper noun (shared by many entities), whereas place names are "specific" proper nouns (particular to an entity). I would say the comparison is more to the names of individuals (e.g. Lionel Messi) rather than a given name or a surname (e.g. Lionel and Messi). - TheDaveRoss14:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I think certain ones like Haymarket are probably common enough as road names that they're fine to keep (even if the etymology is pretty obvious in that particular case). Theknightwho (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep all A named road is a place just like anything else. The fact that there's a blurred line between street and neighborhood is enough for me to feel all of these should be kept. Purplebackpack8917:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Baker Street has been ignored, probably because of Sherlock Holmes, but as a street name it is quite boring. There are others which are more interesting:
Bow Street of Bow Street Runner fame, and named for its shape;
@Donnanz: thing is, whether the etymology is interesting or not isn't the criterion for inclusion. I could say that Albert Winsemius Lane in Singapore has an interesting etymology, but frankly it's a really short and insignificant road. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of roads named London Road, including one in my locale, but none are entryworthy. It's a case of knowing where to draw the line - the nominator of these ones is more hardline than I am. DonnanZ (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep all. I agree, this list consists entirely of names of roads that areas are named after and some of them have interesting etymologies but I wouldn’t want an entry for the London Road in Coventry not far from me, for example (or any other similarly named road). On the issue of Petty France, there’s also Petty Wales and especially Little Britain that should have entries. According to Wikipedia this phrase has been used at various times to refer to either Wales, Ireland or Brittany and it was originally an area of London before becoming a road name. I’ve always assumed that the sketch show of the same name was at least in part inspired by the street name too, though the only etymology given in Wikipedia is Little Englander + Great Britain (though we probably wouldn’t want to include the sketch show as an entry in any case). Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly. Referring both to Wikipedia and my trusty Master Atlas of Greater London, Little Britain is a street in the City of London, but it's not a district any more. On the other hand, there is a tiny place named Little Britain (and Little Britain Bridge) in Cowley, on the west side of Greater London, almost in Buckinghamshire. There are places named Little Britain in the US and Canada, so it's still worth an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Donnanz: my mistake; it was previously a district, but that should be enough. See "w:Little Britain, London": "Historically, Little Britain referred to a small district in the City just north of London Wall, including this street." Also, according to "w:Little Britain", it is the name of a number of geographical locations in various countries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia is not a comprehensive gazetteer of thoroughfares, nor can it be expected to be. Only the more noteworthy ones find their way in. Hence the non-inclusion of Petty Wales, which is a short street close to the Tower of London. DonnanZ (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@Donnanz: my point is that in order to comply with WT:CFI, neither the notability of a road, nor whether its etymology is interesting, is relevant. If a term means nothing more than "this is the name of a road", then WT:CFI isn't satisfied. However, if the term also refers to a geographical location such as a district, then WT:CFI is satisfied. — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@Donnanz: but it is entirely appropriate for @ExcarnateSojourner to go through those 61 entries to ascertain whether the CFI have in fact been observed, is it not? Sixty-one entries can easily balloon to hundreds or thousands if not reviewed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: Still 61 entries three weeks later, so no ballooning (yet). I am inclined to say keep all of these, having found another reference to the Burma Road from 1943 - "Lashio, the busy railhead of the Burma Road". DonnanZ (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
That is exactly what the nominator hasn't done, hence my mass rejection of these nominations en masse, which is never a good idea. DonnanZ (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Well the alternative is posting them one by one, which is not only very time-consuming for the nominator, but doesn't really provide any advantages. Theknightwho (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Donnanz: yes, I don't see the relevance of that point. We don't keep non-CFI-compliant entries just because other non-compliant entries have not been added within some arbitrary period. If entries are non-compliant they should be deleted, otherwise they act as an incorrect precedent for the addition of similar entries by editors unfamiliar with the CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
If finding figurative usages is an issue, they should've been sent to RFV. I'm inclined to keep all, and as I've mentioned before, I'd really avoid these batch nominations as it's much harder to parse them and we run into the issue of partial votes and then some are on different levels than others (and it becomes much harder to archive them properly). AG202 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Late comment: Glenealy is also the name of a (now mostly subterranean) stream and the valley that runs parallel to the road, and the road appears to be named after the stream/valley, which would ultimately be named after the village in Ireland. In this case it would satisfy WT:CFI#Place names, by tweaking the definition to mention the stream/valley. Wpi31 (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep based on the 1877 and 1909 citations, assuming that other similar quotes could be found. If "Holywell Street literature" was a euphemism for erotica, even used in contexts not directly related to the literal street, that seems sufficient to justify an entry. 98.170.164.8807:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep. The 1877 citation does indeed seem to be about porn generally and the 1907 citation was written after 1900, when Holywell Street itself no longer existed (assuming that we take this citation on good faith that is, I’ve added GoogleBook links for the first two but can’t find the third). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep, though it would be good to find a few more citations, and if it was exclusively used in the 19th and early 20th centuries it should be tagged. - TheDaveRoss13:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep provided the definition is updated so that it refers to a figurative sense rather than just the name of the street. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep provided the definition is updated so that it refers to the figurative sense of the profession of bespoke tailoring rather than just the name of the street. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep: often used in contexts where the reader is expected to understand "fancy clothes", e.g. (found in GBooks) "Jesus, did you buy out Savile Row?" Equinox◑22:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I was going to rfv or rfd this one myself, but before doing so I submitted 長安街 (the Chinese character name) to rfv (diff) The results with translation are seen here: Citations:長安街. I am still not fully convinced that 長安街 has a "figurative sense" on its entry page. I interpret "sense" to mean that there is a sense on entry on the page and it's figurative. (From that discussion: @Cactusləvɚ, Justinrleung) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I could see those citations potentially supporting an argument that the Chinese name is worth having, but can any figurative uses be found for the English name? 98.170.164.8805:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I don’t think gazetteers are suitable for relying on for the purpose of WT:LEMMING. By definition, a gazetteer is a dictionary or encyclopaedia of geographical names, so it will contain many more terms that an ordinary general dictionary would. Comparison should instead be made to general dictionaries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I understand and accept that judgment 100%, no problem. I am not in favor of or against removing this entry; I merely present the gazetteer info as potentially relevant data. However, I wonder if the statement "Comparison should instead be made to general dictionaries." is correct in Wiktionary's circumstances. We know that "Wiktionary has grown beyond a standard dictionary" (Wiktionary:Main_Page), so maybe a renowned geographer's gazetteer does have some weight, even if it doesn't reach convincing weight in this case. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: well, WT:LEMMING is not policy, so it should be applied carefully and not in a way that is contrary to CFI which is policy. There are many specialist dictionaries out there which contain terms that do not comply with CFI. For example, one might imagine a dictionary of chemical compounds with entries that are extremely long systematic names of compounds. Such terms are SoP, and it would not be right to rely on WT:LEMMING to argue for there inclusion here at the Wiktionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I think I added the London street to the Welsh village entry as there seems to be a connection, the Welsh place was possibly named after the street. It is unusual to find "Street" in a Welsh place name, and more common in England, especially in Kent, Sole Street for example. DonnanZ (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
and the village of Street in Somerset (apparently there’s a hamlet there and a place in Ireland by that name too). — This unsigned comment was added by Overlordnat1 (talk • contribs) at 13:39, 6 November 2022.
I would like to keep all, as noted above, but have singled out this one in particular for keeping, for its historical interest. The attached Wikipedia article is interesting enough. DonnanZ (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Burma Road appears to be nothing but a road, whereas the Silk Road, despite its name, is not actually a single road but a network of trade routes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The real point to be made here is what was intended to be a useful category has suddenly become toxic, and now there is no point in using it at all. There is an entry with a similar name which escaped as it wasn't put in the category, and it's now too late for removing the category from these entries. DonnanZ (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep: in 4+ other dictionaries (WT:LEMMING). They think this is useful for dictionary users and that they expect to find this kind of thing in a dictionary, and they may well be right; they sure have better user experience research resources than Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep since there seems to be solid evidence of figurative usage: "It was Marcus's idea to create a 'Burma Road' ... from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem" , "the railway now stated to be a 'Burma Road' in Persia" , "a 'Burma Road' to Russia" , "provide a 'Burma Road' of supplies from America and Britain and the Empire to our sorely-pressed Allies" . —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
RFD-kept all roads nominated as there are no votes supporting deletion of the non-singled-out items, whether on a per-item level or via summary "delete all except X, Y, Z" vote. That may not be what editors intended but that is what is revealed here on record. Should we do something else? Should I interpret the editors who voted in the singling-out sections as wanting to delete items that are not singled out? If so, editors should probably say so on record. There are at least 2 "keep all" votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The closure was not in bad faith, but I can see how it can be controversial. I am not sure what the best closure is, and I layed out my deliberations. The above editor did not disclose any thought or arguments. No parts or aspects of the closure were identified as problematic; that is unhelpful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Dan tried to keep all roads, when there is obviously no consensus for doing so. This kind of bad faith opportunism is completely inappropriate. Theknightwho (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There aren't any boldface deletes on any roads, and that's the problem. That's why I encourage those who want to see something deleted to actually say so on record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Re: "There aren't any boldface deletes on any roads": Mistake: there are in fact 1) a boldface delete on Burma Road, 2) one on Karakoram Highway, and 3) one on Bow Street. My point was, badly formulated, that as for the roads not singled out as separate sections, there is no boldface delete on them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There was only one delete vote, on Burma Road, and no voting has taken place for over a month. Theknightwho had plenty of opportunity earlier, but failed to take it. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Let it be made on record that this has the outward appearance of trolling by the known suspect. But it does not matter; someone else can close this later, and the closure is likely to be the same unless some evidence of consensus for deletion develops in the mean time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Dan, it is obvious that you have learned nothing from your previous ban. If you continue to behave in the same way as you did then, I will restore it permanently. Theknightwho (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what authority you have, but it's pretty obvious there is no consensus for mass deletion. Your obvious line is harassment, victimisation, and dislike of Dan. DonnanZ (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that the discussion is still ongoing, and that Dan has opportunistically used every trick in the book to close as many discussions as he can on the page, which is a continuation of the sort of behaviour that got him banned in the first place. Crybullying will not work around here. Theknightwho (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Any complaints about my conduct belong to my user talk page (proper venue), where they can receive a response, if required, or no response, if required. The above conduct falls safely under the intimidation and harassment rubric. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm-yeah, he has a bad history of warring with Dan. Fortunately I abstained in that vote, so I can't be blamed for electing a rotten admin. DonnanZ (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's be frank, here: you only dislike what I'm doing because you agree with Dan's abuse of process. He has been repeatedly warned by several admins in the last few days alone, even after coming back from a month-long block for engaging in this exact kind of behaviour.
The big difference, here, is that I'm re-opening discussions that have been closed for the wrong reasons, rather than trying to force closure of them in favour of my point of view. If you cannot see that, then that is on you. Theknightwho (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I studiously avoid getting involved in petty squabbles between editors but it is damaging to the project to override the consensus of the community on a whim and petty to block @Dan Polansky without a very good reason (I'm well aware that Dan can sometimes be a bit rude and strange but it takes two to tango and all of these entries, except perhaps Karakoram Highway, should be kept and not deleted and this discussion should be closed and archived). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Overlordnat1 Dan has engaged in personal attacks on numerous editors, both before and after his block, on this page, the BP and his talk page. It is also a continuation of exactly what got him blocked last time. He was absolutely blocked for a “good reason”, but do feel free to read his latest individualised tirades against several users on his talk page if you need confirmation that this was necessary. Theknightwho (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The talk page is certainly a good example of the rude and strange behaviour I alluded to but in any case, let's call this RFD-Kept. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, but will the category ever shake off the toxicity it has gained? I could have used it this morning, but avoided it like the plague. DonnanZ (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Oof. Well, I now think AG202 was right that it would have been better to nominate these individually in the first place. @Theknightwho, @DonnanZ Not that I think anyone here is upset with me, but I apologize for opening this discussion in a way that seems to have made its closure unavoidably controversial. I think I will re-nominate these individually over time. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib)17:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
