Talk:concavo-convex
Add topicDiscussion on proposed deletion
[edit]umm, once again, this is a perfectly valid term, it's used in reference to lenses. It is in almost every dictionary I've looked in. Once again, I'm not sure what the "non grammatic" comment is in reference to, let alone the "no links" one. --E. abu Filumena
- I did find this in MW Online: Function: adjective
- : concave on one side and convex on the other
- : having the concave side curved more than the convex <a concavo-convex lens>
- See also concavo-concave
- Where do these links go? Good form dictates that using a link means you have taken the effort to at least start some sort of definition instead of directing the reader to a blind alley, don't you think?
--HiFlyer 16:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Someone put in a perfectly good definition for a perfectly good term, concavo-convex. You (or someone using your name) then added an rfd notice, with the text "nonsense, non grammatic, stub, no links". This seemed wrong on all four counts, though I'm not sure what "non grammatic" might mean in this context. Certainly the term itself is perfectly good, and the defining text looks fine.
- Given that the term is attested and the definition was valid, requesting that the article be deleted seems a bit strong, to say the least. One would expect more justification than "nonsense, non grammatic, stub, no links". It's no surprise that the rfd was quickly reverted.
- I don't mean to discourage participation. Everyone makes mistakes. This one just seemed odd, and it came in the midst of quite a bit of wrangling over contentious usage of a few terms. I apologize if the original comment was harsh. -dmh 15:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- One note: If part of an article is a copyvio, don't add an rfd. The rfd designation applies to the entire article. It says, "This article shouldn't even be here." If some defining text is copyrighted, simply remove it. If you can give a replacement in your own words, great. Otherwise, you'll probably want to mark the article rfc with a suitable comment, and possibly mark the affected section substub (if it's completely gutted without the deleted text).
- The article's a keeper. I plan to move the relevant part of the above discussion to it's talk page, and delete the rest. Eclecticology 02:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)