Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Amtrak. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Amtrak, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Amtrak in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Amtrak you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Amtrak will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Amtrak, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFD
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
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.
"The name and service mark under which w:National Railroad Passenger Corporation does business." Because the entry doesn't even pretend to give the word a meaning and only names it as a brand. DCDuring created this recently, I suppose to make trouble or test the limits of the brand arguments. Equinox◑21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Trouble? People were making statements that WT:BRAND simply did not cover branded services and used ] as evidence. Who is causing the trouble? I didn't notice very many objecting to those statements, so I assume that there is tacit support for that position. DCDuringTALK21:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Looks like a single word, can host pronunciation, and has etymology; thus, the entry is capable of hosting lexicographical information that cannot be gained by combining lexicographical information of other entries. From what I can tell, CFI does not have any special treatment for service marks. --Dan Polansky15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
This belongs at RFV, not here. But it's probably easily attested (not that I've tried). Keep and move to RFV if it's not easily attested.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Amtrak" is attestable and this is RFV: I propose this nomination is withdrawn. Try RFD for "company name criteria", which is an unvoted-on and contested piece of CFI. --Dan Polansky20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I was about to solicit input on whether the quotations in the entry met whatever standards are relevant, or not, but I notice that there is only one quotation in the entry. Before we can discuss whether or not the term passes RFV by having standard-meeting quotations, it needs to have three quotations, full stop. Will someone please add ones that appear to meet COMPANY/BRAND or whatever standard we apply? Then we can discuss whether or not they indeed meet that standard, and pass or fail the term. (An alternative is to delete this as uncited.) - -sche(discuss)20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've archived the old discussion, which had petered out anyway, to the talk page: I'm starting a new listing because our rules have now been updated (by the BRAND votes), and I think the new rules apply to this entry. In any case, this should be cited to the relevant standards (BRAND? COMPANY), or deleted as is long overdue. - -sche(discuss)04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Kept. I don't care whether this and the other terms stay or go, and no-one has commented proposing that they don't meet CFI, so they're staying. - -sche(discuss)21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply