Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of noun converses

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - this is the same as Relational oppositeness. Krakatoa Katie 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of noun converses[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SILLINESS? Seriously, this is a ridiculous article. I removed the speedy delete tag as A7 doesn't apply and we don't have speedy delete tags for this sort of thing. Obviously, the list of antonyms is potentially endless. As an aside, antonym and converse don't mean the same thing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, antonym and converse are not the same thing. Converses are special types of antonyms, called relational antonyms. The page says this. The list is potentially big, but not endless. Myahyawiki (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does fail at being silly. It's a real topic, although perhaps obscure to those who've had only Modern English in the last decade or two and not become computer programmers. Useful (and a good explanation), it needs to be linked into some of the other parts of speech articles. I doubt that it will grow to a hundred pairs. There are other languages that have many nouns describing family relationships where this category might be more useful to those learning those languages, even in English, to those coming from those languages, the shortness of the list will be useful. htom (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to Web Ontology Language. Currently the only cited source is that project's internal documentation. Alternately, a selective merge to some article on word meaning such as Relational oppositeness could be useful. But as a list, it seems out of scope. That is, the idea that some nouns have converse relationships is encyclopedic information about languages, particularly the English language. But as a list of nouns that have such relationships, its lexical information, which seem closer to dictionary than encyclopedia scope. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with merging into Relational oppositeness, but that appears to be a new name for the old idea and classification (perhaps by someone who didn't know the old name?) A merge, with a redirect from the the other name would work. I'm inclined to keep Noun converse, because it's about nouns, not the relationships they express. Or so it seems to me. htom (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge or simply delete, largely duplicates Relational oppositeness. Hairhorn (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with merging into relational opposites is that converse is not opposite, it's the reverse direction of a paired relationship (parent - child); the opposite of parent is non-parent, an opposite of child is adult. The proper place to merge would be Relational reverses or Relational antonyms a subhead in Opposite_(semantics). (Note that that last has a sub heading for relational converses!) There's also Relational antonym which mistakenly redirects to Relational oppositeness, which to my way of thinking is backwards, relational antonym being a more correct term if we don't want noun (converse). Relational antonyms are a subset of relational opposites, they're not synonyms.

I'd like

Noun (converse) --> Opposite (semantics)
Relational antonym --> Opposite (semantics)
Relational opposite --> Opposite (semantics)
Relational oppositeness --> Opposite (semantics) and
Relational converse --> Opposite (semantics)

with mergers, redirects, and deletions to do all of that, but I have not the Wiki skills to manage that task. htom (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.