Talk:less-than-stellar

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

• Can we do an RFD for the word of the day?  :-O It seems like sum-of-parts to me, e.g. "less-than-awesome," etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Heh, is there a precedent? 'DonnanZ (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)'Reply
    • I would describe it in the same vein as the RFD for "low-priced" above. The antonym here would just be "beyond-stellar." E.g. "a beyond-stellar performance," "a less-than-stellar performance," etc.—seems to be pretty clearly sum-of-parts. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Comment: there is the sarcasm element, though. Stellar usually means "exceptional, wonderful", and less-than-stellar doesn't simply mean "slightly less exceptional or wonderful" but actually "mediocre" or "poor". That, to my mind, may make it non-SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The sarcasm element is true, but isn't that kind of verbal irony element applicable to just about anything? I could be stuck in traffic and say "this is great", but one wouldn't include a "(sarcastic) undesireable, inoptimal" definition to the entry for great. Sarcasm, understatement, etc. being sources of definitions seems slippery and difficult to discern/regulate. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree with SanctMinimalicen. "Less-than-awesome" has the exact same sarcastic meaning as "less-than-stellar," and you can create many more such terms that include a sarcastic emphasis. Also, it can be argued that the word automatically implies sarcasm, since "stellar" can be defined literally as "astronomically great," such that being slightly less than stellar but still much greater than sky-high is relatively meaningless, unless it is a sarcastic sense to mean a much lower metaphorical height than the height of stars above the planetary surface. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

      That brings to mind Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Sarcastic usage:

      The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion. This means, for example, that big should not be defined as “(ironic) small”, “(understatement) gigantic” or “(hyperbole) moderately large”. Common rhetorical use can be explained in a usage note, a context tag (such as (Usually sarcastic)) or as part of the literal definition. Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits.

      Thus, the question is whether less-than-stellar is a term which is "seldom or never used literally", and I have a feeling that the term does meet this criterion. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

    • Hm, yeah, it does seem to fit that criterion--as Nicole pointed out, the word basically only exists in a sarcastic capacity. I'm okay with this in principle, but I'm uneasy that one could apply the formula to any adjective for the same ironic/sarcastic effect. It's still a slippery slope. I'm wondering if it wouldn't potentially be more appropriate to formulate this as a snowclone: "less-than-X"? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• I agree, it's completely normal litotes. Don't know if I'd push for deleting it, but certainly a weird choice to highlight for WotD. Ƿidsiþ 05:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  It was on the nomination list, so I featured it. Can't say I gave it much thought at the time. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Delete per SanctMinimalicen. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I think I'm leaning towards delete as well, because I think what matters is the construction "less-than-x", and not so much the particular instance of less-than-stellar. There must be a way to include that structure elsewhere. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • @SanctMinimalicen: See this discussion. The consensus seems to be that these should be in the Appendix namespace; see Appendix:Snowclones/X_as_X_can_be for example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • @Per utramque cavernam: Thank you--I wasn't certain where they belonged and that clarifies it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Delete per "less-than-X" being a general construct as discussed above. Equinox ◑ 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Delete. How about we include less-than-great, less-than-fascinating, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Or less than impressed? That's me quite often. DonnanZ (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually, if it is meant to be sarcastic (it's not a term I am familiar with), I would keep it, I'm not sure whether it is used globally. DonnanZ (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

But any phrase can be used "sarcastically" (it's really litotes rather than sarcasm). Not exactly Brad Pitt gets more than 120 Google Books hits. You can't codify irony. Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see only 12 actual hits.  --Lambiam 18:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Less than X" is quite frequently a sarcastic/ironical construct, for any X. (Should we add something at "less than"?) By the way, when closing this, we should probably take the same action with the unhyphenated "less than stellar" entry. Equinox ◑ 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Keep for this one it is an idiomatic phrase with a meaning that will always be suggesting that it was poor. So it is not a sum. less-than-great, less-than-fascinating are not used nearly as much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now also nominating the alt form less than stellar. Equinox ◑ 14:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deleted: I count 5:3 in favour of deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@SGconlaw: Our definition of consensus is usually 2:1 (2/3), which is not met here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh? Is that documented somewhere? I wasn’t aware we had a precise definition of what constitutes consensus. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

2/3 is not documented anywhere. You can look at various discussions to see what thresholds were discussed and applied; one such is at the end of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Image policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ping SGconlaw. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In that case passed, on the assumption that a two-thirds majority is required for consensus for deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply