Talk:raucous

Isn't this a noun as well, like: "A raucous erupted." 66.26.84.143 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be thinking of (deprecated template usage) ruckus. --EncycloPetey 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RFD

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.

---

raucous

Rfd-redundant: "loud and annoying" redundant to "disorderly and boisterous". Look at the usage example 'raucous party', which would be as good under the "disorderly and boisterous". So delete/merge and improve. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Raucous needn't imply annoying. Equinox ◑ 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Equinox: A few dictionaries do include the reaction of the hearer in one of the usually two definitions: eg, "Making or constituting a disturbingly harsh and loud noise" Oxford US. "harshly or hoarsely loud" Collins. "disagreeably harsh or strident" MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we delete this sense, but add the "loud" connotation to sense 1. Dbfirs 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

MW 1913 has "Hoarse; harsh; rough; as, a raucous, thick tone. His voice slightly raucous." (no mention of "loud") and not the "disorderly and boisterous" sense which is the most common current one, IMO. So meaning has changed. The dictionaries that incorporate into a definition the hearer's reaction to the noise always include "harsh/strident/hoarse/grating" in the definition. The "disorderly, boisterous" definitions do not include the hearer's reaction. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As of 9 May 2015, there is only one attested usages for the criminal sense. How can there be consensus about whether any other sense is idiomatic? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is redundancy, not idiomaticity. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant: redundancy is not a term found in WT:CFI. Which standard guides this? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The question is not whether the word should be included but whether the separate definition is correct. bd2412 T 18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)