Talk:price to sell
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.
SOP. 212.224.234.45 16:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- (I created these entries.) WT:SOP says, “This criterion is sometimes referred to as the fried egg test, as a fried egg generally means an egg (and generally a chicken egg or similar) fried in a particular way. It generally doesn't denote a scrambled egg, which may nonetheless be cooked by frying.”
- I'd think that this fails the “fried egg test” because it's used euphemistically and as a strictly promotional term for things which aren't actually priced attractively. I can look for some examples of such usage if that would help. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Struthious Bandersnatch I don't think it matters if it's sometimes used euphemistically. Any term can be used euphemistically sometimes; it would only be non-SOP if it *always* (or almost always) is a euphemism, which isn't the case here. Benwing2 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I just realized that I've misunderstood the “fried egg test” and gotten it backwards—since “fried egg” is included, it seems that passing the “fried egg test” by having a more specific meaning than sum-of-parts is what merits inclusion.
And in that case, I'd think that while price for quick sale would fail WT:SOP overall and be ineligible for inclusion, price to sell would pass the “fried egg test” because it has a more specific meaning than its parts—from its parts you'd infer it to mean something like “to price at any level that will not prevent a sale”, but in actuality it specifies an attractive price level, set at an optimum to cause a sale. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Struthious Bandersnatch: Yes, price for quick sale is definitely SOP. Not sure about price to sell; maybe others have opinions. Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's no less SOP than "made to last" and many others. "to sell" is simply an infinitive of purpose. Of course, if you want to sell something you'll have to set an "attractive" price, but it's a logical inference. There's nothing lexical there. PUC – 11:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
But “to last” as an infinitive of purpose actually implies persisting for a lengthy time as its use in “made to last” connotes. We define it with “To endure, continue over time”, synonyms “continue”, “endure”, and “survive”, and the related term “lasting” which as an adjective we define as “Persisting for an extended period of time” or “Persisting forever.”
Conversely, the use of “to sell” in “price to sell” has a different, specific meaning than in “to sell up”, “to sell down the river”, “to sell the dummy”, “to sell one's life dearly”, or “selling price”, or a host of other included phrases. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but AFAICT this is our sense 2 of sell: "(ergative) To be sold." PUC – 10:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
My point is that you are incorrect when you say, “Of course, if you want to sell something you'll have to set an "attractive" price...” because none of those other included terms refer specifically to selling at an attractive price; in fact “to sell one's life dearly” is explicitly referring to selling at an unattractive price.
There's definitely an extra “part” in addition to “price”, “to”, and “sell”. (And in fact, despite using two of the same “parts”, “selling price” has a notably different meaning—“price to sell” does not simply mean to price something at the “selling price”.) --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but AFAICT this is our sense 2 of sell: "(ergative) To be sold." PUC – 10:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's no less SOP than "made to last" and many others. "to sell" is simply an infinitive of purpose. Of course, if you want to sell something you'll have to set an "attractive" price, but it's a logical inference. There's nothing lexical there. PUC – 11:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Struthious Bandersnatch: Yes, price for quick sale is definitely SOP. Not sure about price to sell; maybe others have opinions. Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Struthious Bandersnatch I don't think it matters if it's sometimes used euphemistically. Any term can be used euphemistically sometimes; it would only be non-SOP if it *always* (or almost always) is a euphemism, which isn't the case here. Benwing2 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Hi, S.B.. Would you like to keep the entry you created? You should probably state that explicitly. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Hi, Dentonius; yes, whereas I can see that “price for quick sale” fails Wiktionary's inclusion criteria per SOP, it looks to me as though “price to sell” is valid for inclusion. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Surely the whole point of pricing is so that one may sell an item, so in a sense all items with price tags have been "priced to sell", but that is not what the expression means - it means priced at a cheaper than ordinary price. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Sonofcawdrey. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
RFD kept — Dentonius 19:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)