Talk:bein'

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:bein'. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:bein', but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:bein' in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:bein' you have here. The definition of the word Talk:bein' will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:bein', as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

RFD result

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

From this revision:

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

Tagged for speedy, but I'm not sure where Wiktionary is on these, now. --Connel MacKenzie 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Not even worthy of inclusion here. Are we going to add every single example of an 'ing' word being shortened. --Dmol 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Keep this and every other single example of an 'ing' word being shortened, if that's the right word. (It's the same number of characters and often the same number of sounds.) Seeing as we'll probably have thousands, we probably need some sort of template for this, like {{-in' of|be|being}} or something (but with the second parameter bein' optional if it's just the first parameter plus (deprecated template usage) -ing). An etymology template like {{-in' etym}} might be nice as well, producing something simple, like "See (deprecated template usage) -in'." —RuakhTALK 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Keep. This seems like a BP issue or even a vote. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Delete Kevin Rector 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Ruakh, or at the very least until there is policy consensus that these do not meet the CFI. Thryduulf 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Keep! Mark as {{eye dialect}}, I think, or perhaps with a new template per Ruakh.—msh210℠ 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this (as a general issue) should be put forward as a formal vote. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I can think of six different up-or-down votes we could possibly take:
  • Do the current CFI allow for -in' entries, when attested?
  • Do the current CFI allow for such entries, even if not attested, as long as the -ing form is attested?
  • Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly allowed, when attested?
  • Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly allowed, when the -ing for is attested?
  • Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly barred, even when attested?
  • Should the CFI be amended so that such entries are explicitly barred, when not attested, even if the -ing form is attested?
Perhaps we should have a straw poll as to the first two before we do any formal vote on any of them, just so as to get a feeling of what people think the current CFI say. (My own feeling about the first two questions is "yes" and "no", respectively, for whatever that's worth.)—msh210℠ 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
That straw poll sounds like a good idea - but for the beer parlour not here. Thryduulf 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See BP discussion at WT:BP#-in.27_forms. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) modified negligibly—msh210℠ 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No consensus: kept.—msh210℠ 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia