Talk:Purvey

2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I can find references to this phrase, but they are all references to having been at one or funeral homes mentioning it as an expense. Also, the linguistic jump makes me wonder when/where the use may have actually started. Still, it does not seem to be anything notable, or even "nifty".--Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{subst:prod}} tag now, though if no sources have been found in a year I do doubt that they will arive within five days.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no sources are found, this page should not be deleted, but redirected to purveyance. Neelix (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purveyance has absolutely no relation to this wiki, no is there any reasoning as to why such a redirect would ever be made other than the fact that they both share the same root word. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not deleted, then at the very least this should be a dismbig page, with perhaps a mention of it's use in the funeral context, if any legit definition of it in that sense can be found. A simple redirect would be without merit due to the only reasoning would be the base word root, which is an unlikely mistake for someone to make for either of those rather particular uses.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not to mention that the best connection even this article can manage is that it is "presumably" derived from the French word. It is entirely as possible that the two are unconnected, barring any sources whatsoever. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that the funeral meal called "purvey" is in any way related to the legal concept "purveyance". What I am suggesting is that the verb form of "purveyance" is "purvey", and therefore it would not be a mistake for someone to type "purvey" into the search bar when looking for the legal concept "purveyance". It is also the verb form of "purveyor", as is made plain by [1]. For these reasons, "purvey", if not a valid article unto itself, is at the very least a valid redirect page. Neelix (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]