Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:ace of hearts. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:ace of hearts, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:ace of hearts in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:ace of hearts you have here. The definition of the word Talk:ace of hearts will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:ace of hearts, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Well they're not specific entries because you can have more than one of each. So the question is are these idiomatic or indeed dictionary material. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Strong KEEP As I read CFI, if you can find three quotes where "cards" or "pack of cards" etc is not specifically mentioned, then these entries stand. Now, we can either spend a bit of time finding the necessary 3 quotes for each playing card; or take it as read that these quotes will not be very difficult to find, simply time consuming. -- ALGRIF talk11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
SoP is not a reason to delete, nor is it a reason to keep. If a term is SoP, it needs something more to make it worthwhile. In this case, ace of diamonds is a set term and it’s idiomatic. Every language has a specific term for this, and you cannot simply translate the three parts ace + of + diamonds to find out how to write it in any other language. Russian, for example, is бубновый туз ... nothing to do with diamonds. —Stephen13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not the same example. My wife has a bracelet with an ace of diamonds on it. Does this information tell us if she is wearing any valuable gemstones or not? -- ALGRIF talk16:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unless you know that an ace of diamonds is a type of playing card in the first place, you would have not the slightest idea of what she was wearing. Perhaps the biggest diamond you have ever seen. An ace of diamonds. The entry is a type of playing card, just as a Ford Model T is a type of car. Just as the queen of hearts is not M.Monroe. Just as the knave of clubs is not some scoundrel who likes to do the club circuit. -- ALGRIF talk17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes. You are right. The only reason I didn't create them was that I felt I had better things to do, but it is on my "to do when you are bored" list. But the picture cards were important, as the margin for error is greater. The words ace, king, queen, jack and knave have more degrees of freedom -- ALGRIF talk12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Then, on the other hand, ace, king etc. have been defined as having the playing card sense, and heart, spade etc. as one of the suits in a deck of playing cards. It would take some imagination to come to the misconception that "king of spades" would equal to "king of flat-bladed digging tools". If nothing else, the context should easily reveal the correct interpretation - unless someone is actually digging with a king of spades, of course. --Hekaheka12:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that you are confusing the issue because the term is very common and well-known. SB is quite right to state a principle of CFI that in "a of b" terms, where both "a" and "b" have multiple meanings, but "a of b" refers to only one of them, then the entry passes CFI. For this reason we have entries such as window frame, goal post, and a very large etc of well-known terms that could be RfD for SoP, but aren't because of the a + b rule. -- ALGRIF talk13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
My gut feeling is that they only exist for translation purposes and should probably go. If a new fifth suit were added to card games — let's call it "trowels" — then constructions like "queen of trowels", "ace of trowels" would be immediately apparent. Equinox◑16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Three points; 1. I am tempted to include queen of coins simply because it exists and I suspect that you have no idea what it is, and so it would serve to knock down your strawman argument. 2. Why, oh why, do some contributors put the translation issue onto such a low level of importance. It should be right up there in the top five reasons why entries should NOT be deleted! Isn't this the English dictionary in all languages? Have you read Stephen's comments about бубновый туз above? 3. I have yet to hear anyone explain why Wikt would be better off without these entries. What are the benefits of deletion, please? -- ALGRIF talk12:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, Equinox, I didn't realise that you were unaware of the meaning of strawman argument. I was in no way intending to cast aspersions. I was merely trying to point out that "queen of trowels" is a tactic to win an argument based on an example of something that does not exist. I reply with the "queen of coins" which does exist, and you kindly give me the reason why this ought to be included in Wikt. (There are many types of cards, and the queen of hearts/coins etc is not in all of them). Hence all such entries should really be included. To be honest, I am very disillusioned with the project as regards multiple word entries. We seem to swallow the most blatant garbage in one-word entries, and yet gag at the gnats of valuable multi-word entries which other dictionary publishers include without problem, but have to relegate them to extra volumes, because of the "paper problem". There are very respectable dictionaries out there that include multi-word entries which have been questioned or rejected by Wikt often with the comment "not in OED" or similar. (So what? It IS in Longmans and Collins and Cambridge, and etc subsidiary dictionaries). The entries are not in their main product, rather they are in such items as "Dictionary of common idioms", "Dictionary of phrasal verbs", "Language builder dictionary for learners", etc etc etc. If Wikt really sees itself as being at the cutting edge then there would be a proper addressing of this issue, instead of the pointless merry-go-round of RfD and RfV forums, which produce no consensus and no change to CFI. What we need is another forum dedicated to marking the limiting lines on the basis of decisions reached in RfD and RfV, a kind of "case law" place which could perhaps reduce the huge amount of time wasted in going over and over the same old ground to no real end in the other forums. IMHO. ALGRIF talk12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I do know what "straw man" means. My reply meant that your theoretical "Equinox who doesn't know what a tarot card is" is something that does not exist, so you were committing the exact same fallacy yourself. Equinox◑00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
