Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Avus. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Avus, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Avus in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Avus you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Avus will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Avus, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I previously nominated this term as a member of cat:en:Named roads, but it was kept on the basis that this term was never singled out in that discussion.
Defined as "A major road in Berlin". CFI states, "Most manmade structures, including ... individual roads and streets ... may only be attested through figurative use".
I am far from the only person to have made this observation, and there’s nothing “lowbrow” about it. Keep your snobbery to yourself. Theknightwho (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
In fact, that is preferable to a mass nomination where it is difficult to focus on individual entries. If a particular entry is not in accordance with CFI, there is no reason for it to remain. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Categories are driven by entries, not the other way around. If there are no qualifying entries in a category and it is not foreseeable there will be, then the category should not exist. In any case, this is theoretical because there are named roads with figurative senses such as Madison Avenue and Wall Street (though I do not think the plain street-name senses should remain). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
If the name of a specific entity is used in another sense, derived from some characteristic of that entity, and become lexicalized as such, it behoves the lexicographer to record this as its etymology, preferably while identifying not only the eponym but also its relevant characteristic. --Lambiam11:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. For example, in Wall Street the "street in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States" sense should be removed, and the fact mentioned in the etymology. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer it if you let things be. I have stopped using the category as it has become too toxic; I don't want to see contributions like Birdcage Walk deleted. Don't tempt me into emptying the category. DonnanZ (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Are you essentially admitting that entries like Avus and Birdcage Walk have no figurative sense? In that case why should they not be deleted in accordance with policy that was reached by consensus in a formal vote? Why should any particular entry be retained in the face of policy because one or more editors wish to hang on to them for nostalgic reasons? I’m not seeing how that is a workable way to manage things. — Sgconlaw (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
They may not have figurative senses, but they certainly are of historical interest. If the guidelines are too narrow, allowing figurative senses only, they are at fault, excluding streets of historical interest, or those that are just plain famous. You won't find articles for every road name on Wikipedia, e.g. Staines Road, roads heading towards Staines of which there are a good few in the south-west Middlesex area, including one only a stone's throw from my house, can't be found there, yet London Road has a large number of articles. I have found out that notability matters on Wikipedia, but I wouldn't include either here. But I would consider Oxford Street in London, a famous shopping street. I would recommend that the guidelines are revised to allow for famous and historically interesting roads and streets, but not the less interesting run-of-the-mill ones. It's a case of knowing where to draw the line. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In that case, start a formal vote to amend WT:CFI if you wish. (However, it seems to me iffy to rely on “historical interest” as a criterion for inclusion – it is really quite subjective.) As long as CFI remains in its present form there is no reason why it shouldn’t be enforced. — Sgconlaw (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Just noting that Donnanz did, as he suggested above that he might, remove various named roads from the category (e.g. , , , ), evidently in an attempt to make them less findable and reduce the chances of someone noticing and RFDing any that don't meet CFI. This is disruptive editing, IMO. I noticed this while (re)categorizing some named roads. - -sche(discuss)00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Failed as no figurative sense has been found despite more than a month of discussion. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
