Talk:Nesh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiktionary discussion[edit]

Good article but unfortuately I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia policies under "what wikipedia is not" and the you'll see it clearly says it is not a dictionary, and articles should not be made simply to define a word. I think you should remove it, but I think Wikipedia also has a sister dictionary where you could post it and it would be more appropriate.

Wiktionary already has an entry for this word. This article is not a dictionary definition but looks at the encyclopaedic aspects of its usage. I am currently developing the 'Cultural significance' section which is encyclopaedic and unsuited to Wiktionary. Further, this article is fully sourced.
There are a couple of key sentences in WP:NOT that indicate why this type of article is permissable:
An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. - that has been done here.
It may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas TerriersFan 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in reference to the version I was looking at when I posted it, which was nothing more than a definition. You've developed it nicely, and sourced it well. Personally I am unsure as to where it belongs, though if you keep developing it as you are it seems fine here. Good job.

Thank you for those encouraging words. TerriersFan 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a classic "dicdef" to me. Don't get me wrong, it's good stuff, but it's not an encyclopaedia article, as opposed to a commendably thorough dictionary entry à la OED, and just expanding it doesn't make it one. "This word has had a key part to play in both literature and films where other terms have not been available to convey the particular meaning" -- yes, we use the word that conveys the meaning we want, and it may be the only that does the job just right, and...? How many thousands of words could that statement apply to? Just because a word is dialectal doesn't mean it needs its own encyclopaedia article, any more than any other word you could name. Flapdragon 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other usages[edit]

I notice you removed my attestation to usage of 'nesh' in Shropshire, Manchester and other places. I agree that my observations of this usage (by my mother and by friends in Manchester and Yorkshire) are 'original research' but they are nonetheless true and form part of their ordinary modern-day language. With best wishes, John Warburton 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this from my talk page in the hope that someone can source this usage. TerriersFan 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a Shropshire reference, try this one from the OED: 1879 G. F. JACKSON Shropshire Word-bk. s.v., 'Er's a nesh piece, 'er dunna do above 'afe a day's work. It's given under Sense 2: "Lacking courage, spirit, or energy; timid, faint-hearted; lazy, negligent. Now Eng. regional, chiefly north. rare." Flapdragon 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

"The most accurate definition for current usage is that in the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary" (...) "However, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has the sloppier definition"

Good to see this article is NPOV *massive eye-rolling*. I guess I missed the election for Official Dictionary Quality Judge. I'mma Be Bold and remove/reword this bigtime if I don't get a good reason not to. CumbiaDude 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - I have reworded it! TerriersFan 03:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Good job :p CumbiaDude 18:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements Needed[edit]

The main improvement needed it that is to list-like; it needs more prose. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a deletion on it[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nesh

The article was judged to be a dictionary definition. IMO it is still a dictionary definition about an adjectives. Encyclopedias do not have articles on adjectives (see WP:NAD and WP:MOS on naming). It's already been transwikied before, so it's now gone. If you want to recreate this you will need to do a deletion review.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly unjustified page blanking. First of all the entire text of the previous version was "Basically what northern people call those who cannot withstand the cold.". Compare this article with the Wiktionary entry. TerriersFan (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an adjective. Encyclopedias don't do adjectives.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an article about a word, and how the word is used; and that's all. That's a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia entry. The Wikipedia is not a Dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia articles are not language specific- encyclopedia articles can be translated, because they are about abstract concepts, not linguistic ones about a word or phrase. This is a purely linguistic article about a single English word.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page goes way beyond a dictionary definition and deals with the concept as well as the word. Satements such as "Encyclopedias don't do adjectives" are not helpful. There are plenty of examples od adjectives in encyclopaedias; the key point is whether the content is encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, plenty of adjectives in professionally written encyclopedias? Show me even one.- Wolfkeeper 13:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a bit nesh to delete the article wouldn't it? Gaz Shead (384 Sqn ATC circa 1977) would say "Yer nesh bastards!"Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nesh&oldid=1207160119"