Talk:of Koranic proportions

RFV discussion: December 2013–September 2014

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

of Koranic proportions

Header was: of quranic proportions

Zero hits in Books or Groups, one cite in the entry is clearly a one-off play on "of bliblical proportions", while the other has "of epic, Biblical and Quranic proportions", and neither meets CFI. However nice it might be to have matching sets of everything on Wiktionary for every religion, the truth is that some figures of speech are only associated with one or two of them, and CFI goes by usage, not by some equal time/space rule. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like i said on my talk page, Arabic transliterations are difficult to work with because of the large amount of transliterations. The word Quran is especially difficult since it has about half a dozen transliterations. but i have added some citations despite transliteration differences. I think its fine as it is. Pass a Method (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The citations look good to me. Maybe the page should be moved to of Koranic proportions, since that seems to be the spelling that's attested. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No. let's keep it as it is. If you look at the Google Ngram stats, the most common transliterations tend to change and it is different for each topic. Pass a Method (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Koranic" should count toward attestation of "Quranic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do; it's the same word just a different spelling. I admit it's a tricky one and I don't think there's a policy on it. It's an excellent example of whether WT:CFI just doesn't mention it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sidestepping that issue, all of the citations that seem durable use Koranic, so the entry should be moved. And the definition should be trimmed, since it does seem to be just a rare variation/play on of Biblical proportions. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If this passes, I'm RFDing it as SOP. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Debatable, one citation is "of Biblical and Koranic proportions" which could be considered neither one idiom nor the other but a separate one, and two of the citations are by the same author in the same year. Counting them as one citation gets us down to two citations, which isn't enough. How about Usenet? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What are we going to do about this? The Borman and Pendleton cites are good, but the 1989 one uses “of Biblical or Koranic proportions”. Should it count? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring merely to the phrasing of it, ehhh, I guess phrasing like that is OK. Compare the citations mentioned below, in re pecker mill, which speak of "pecker, cog, and water mills".
However, I'm not convinced that the citation is using an idiomatic sense, as opposed to straightforwardly observing that near-simultaneous epidemics, wars and famines constitute plagues on the scale of those seen in the Bible and Quran, where various nations are described as being plagued with epidemics, wars and famines. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Passed, although I think that if this was any sort of idiomatic expression, we wouldn't be arguing over whether a sort-of-close usage should count as a usage for CFI. bd2412 T 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)