Talk:three of spades

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

three of spades

Also tagged: two of spades, four of spades, five of spades, six of spades, seven of spades, eight of spades, nine of spades, ten of spades, knave of spades, jack of spades, queen of spades, king of spades. SoP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

delete sum of parts, definitely. -- Prince Kassad 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete all.

Who would translate these one at a time? I would be so happy if folks would take the trouble to create an appendix for their language explaining the naming convention(s) in their language for poker and other card decks. If such appendixes were in a shared category anyone needing to play cards in a given language could find the terms needed all at once. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Talk:ace_of_hearts, to my annoyed puzzlement, passed a while ago. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete any numbered suits unless a good claim can be made to allow each. Keep the knave/jack, queen, and king of spades and other suits on account of their use in literature. DAVilla 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember in the last debate being unsure. Overall, delete, an appendix to me sounds fine, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Which we've had since 2006. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a start. It would help if the locutions used in each language (eg, in English, "[rank] of [suit]") were present in the appendix.

For yet another, but monolingual (English) take see User: DCDuring/Appendix:English playing card naming, which has some synonyms, a table of the images of the faces of the 52-card "French" deck, and a somewhat silly table of the most common names of the cards. This is an example of the idea of monolingual "construction" appendices. In this case, it would be desirable to have a similar appendix for each language with a sufficient number of speakers who play games using the deck. The tarot deck might warrant a similar set of appendixes. I'd welcome suggestions about improvements. I intend to move it to Appendix space in the new year, but I'd like to be better first. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The logic is such appendices rather than individual entries is that users need to understand a large part of the whole linguistic field of terms in order to, say, play bridge or poker or write or talk about them. Also the whole set of 52 expressions (more with synonyms for the suits and ranks) requires 100 largely repetitive entries which do not make clear the pattern. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you can't just roll up and dismiss all of these terms so easily. Of the fifty thousand Google Book hits for each of queen of hearts and ace of spades, are you telling me there's no literary merit, no chance of metaphorical use? My vote above is for an easy, immediate solution, and respects the sentiment both here and in previous deletion requests. DAVilla 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As defined, the nominees are just cards. Note that I did not nominate ace of spades, as it has another sense. (OTOH that sense is now at RFV, and if it can't be verified and these entries are deleted then that entry will presumably be deleted too.) If you can add another sense to any of these entries, please do! and then it'll be kept, natch.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as these nominated pages, we don't keep definition lines that are not idiomatic either, so I would have to apply the same outcome here to those senses, leaving the origin of queen of hearts in the etymology if need be. I say they have literary merit also because of uses that are not figurative yet out of context:

• His business life had commenced by the manufacture of shovels on an enormous scale ; he was the King of Spades for the whole land.
• They grumbled that he was the “King of Spades,” not a fighting General. Digging dirt, they said, was no work for gentlemen.

I just don't see why we should have to find examples where the definition line would not help at all to support what are clearly common collocations. DAVilla 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, the case for deletion is stronger for the numbered ranks than for the named ranks. I would argue that we should apply the appendix approach to all repetitive numbered entries that follow some standard rules of construction once the rules are in an Appendix. Of course, component terms, pattern-breaking exceptions to the logic of constructions, and idiomatic meanings warrant individual lexical entries. I would argue also for presumptively excluding terms constructed using synonyms for the ranks (deuce, trey) and suits (flowers, squares) even if they are attestable. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus deleted. Does someone want to close this? DAVilla 03:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)