Talk:Starbucks

RFV discussion: July–October 2017

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

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

---

Starbucks

Does this pass WT:CFI#Company names? (Should this be at RFD instead? I figure we might need attestation for certain types of uses.) --WikiTiki89 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am conservative about these but I would think so. It's very multinational and has also become a byword for samey corporate chains (see Starbucksification and compare McDonald's and various Mc- words). I'll try to cite it later if nobody else bothers. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The existence of a derivative like Starbucksification does not in itself imply that Starbucks should be included. It does, however, indicate that it is likely that Starbucks has more senses that we have not included. --WikiTiki89 21:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. We have Walmartian, but we don't have the Walmart that it derives from. 2602:306:3653:8440:957F:A7C3:639A:2629 01:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note I said "has also become a byword". I think Starbucks means coffee like McDonald's means burgers. Equinox ◑ 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but our current definition does not satisfy that. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel that this metonymic usage is particularly useful to include, but others may disagree. DTLHS (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

But if you consider the fact that without these metonymic usages (or similar), there would be no reason to have an entry for Starbucks at all, then we have to cover it somehow. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• The wealth of results at google books:"the Starbucks of" seems to me ample evidence that CFI is met for this term, so I consider this cited. I have also added a metonymic sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)