Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Care Bears. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Care Bears, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Care Bears in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Care Bears you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Care Bears will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Care Bears, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFD discussion (1)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Reluctant keep. These are recognizeable icons, like smurfs, Muppets, and Klingons. Perhaps we need to start a page solely for hammering out policy on CFI for proper nouns, since the issue seems to be thorny and all too common of late. --EncycloPetey20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
No objection here to the latter. Are you able to propose any objective criteria for determining whether each name has entered the language or not? I would think Care Bear has, even if the individual Care Bears have not. But without guidelines, that's a subjective opinion. DAVilla04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
If they have entered the English language, we should be able to find people using the term outside the specific context without bothering to explain what it means. That is very easy for Care Bear but I believe it is impossible for Kingdom of Caring and the other members of the category. Kappa01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
RFV would not address two specific CFI issues. Not a word in a language (line 1) not idiomatic (line 3, with the text size I use). Why bother citing it for it to fail RFD at a later date? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
1) I suppose World War II is not a term in a language either? This entry is most certainly English, and it is most certainly composed of words. If your claim is otherwise then it brings not only that point but your entire line of reasoning into question. The very absurdity of the statement gets under my skin.
2) "Idiomatic" is to be interpreted in a broad sense, and we have clearly established rules for terms exactly like this to determine if they are worthy of inclusion. If you do not agree with those rules, then you are entitled to your opinion, but at least acknowledge as much in RFD instead of pretending that you are at liberty to entirely ignore them. DAVilla10:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
