Talk:science center

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.

---

science center

sop. it's a center for science Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that science centre existed for years. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really sop, as it could have several meanings from its parts. But it needs a better definition than it has at present, and should really be listed as an alt spelling of science centre which has a better explanation. Weak keep for now, unless you feel both need RFV.--Dmol 00:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning would imply that we should assume our users are so stupid that they cannot make an inference from context as to which of the senses applies. This may be an appropriate assumption for those users that are machines. Few humans fit the description.

Your line of reasoning would also imply we should have entries for any attestable sentence with a polysemous word. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's polysemous enough to warrant inclusion. Make it alt form of science centre as the latter's created first. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)\

Let me propose a few entries: nougat center, transportation center, student center, civic center, entertainment center, starting center, art center, trauma center, counseling center, profit center, fitness center, garden center, home center, distribution center, recycling center, visitor center, visitors center, rehab center, rehabilitation center, conference center, convention center, + some 80 more with more than 5 hits at COCA. Also the variants with "centre". And these are just the two-way combinations. So many polysemous words, so little time.

Do you really mean for all these to be entries? DCDuring TALK 02:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of these would actually make sense to have as entries. For example, an entertainment center is a piece of furniture. A profit center can be a complete abstraction (i.e. the most profitable product line). The word starting center, in a vacuum, can mean anything, but it is probably typically used to refer to the best athlete in that position on a football or basketball team. Most of the combinations above reference a specific meaning of center-as-location that is not necessarily intuitive. Wiktionary is not paper, why not eliminate ambiguity by defining each of them? As to the objection that this implies the assumption that "our users are so stupid that they cannot make an inference from context", we have no idea of context in which they will come across these phrases. bd2412 T 03:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think something we often forget, and I include myself, is that when we meet knew words they come in a context. While on their own as they are in a Wiktionary context, they may seem a bit opaque, often in running text they seem perfectly transparent. So, I'd like to see some citations. I suspect there's more than one attestable sense for this, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there is abroad in the land a fantasy that Wiktionary can overcome all limits and become the perfect lexicon: all senses of all expressions in all contexts in all languages. I think that the evolution of language and of the real world adds senses of expressions in context in current languages at a rate far greater than we can add them to Wiktionary. Focusing on single-word terms and true idioms (by some relatively narrow definition) enables us to achieve high quality and surpass other reference works. Casting a wider net will not. The only concern I have with the narrower focus is that many users are incapable of working on the fundamental terms and may not be willing to put in the effort without the motivating fantasy of the perfect universal lexicon. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Balderdash! Our capacity to keep up with developments in the language is limited only by the size of the community we can attract to do the work. We attract a broader community by being more useful than other resources, a goal that we can best accomplish by offering coverage of a broader swath of materials than can be found in other dictionaries. Cheers! 16:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep hope alive! Our actual number of contributors in English is clearly stagnant. I haven't noticed very many fresh faces generally. And many veterans seem to be losing interest. I'm not sure that entries like "science center" are likely to excite new contributors either. They certainly bore the living hell out of me. Why not go for catchphrases instead of compound nouns? Why not go for new kinds of entries, more essay-like. Sometimes paradigms run out of gas and need renewal. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, like a laboratory? No, keep. DAVilla 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What about science museum? ---> Tooironic 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that it is always a center for science. Though center and science have different meanings, it could refer to any of the meanings of either of them, meaning that this could have dozens of definitions. Delete, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• At COCA about 90% of the usage is as part of a proper noun. I don't know what the rubric is for drawing inferences from such usage to the meaning of the common noun. The common noun cites are mostly ambiguous as to whether the referent is a building or an organization. I have included some cites that illustrate unambiguous non-building senses and generalized the definition to reflect the range of possibilities. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete even I can see this is a SoP.Gtroy 11:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Potentially useful nonobvious collocation. bd2412 T 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

kept, no consensus. -- Liliana • 16:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)