Talk:Nesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wiktionary discussion

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Other usages

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)

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

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)