Talk:Usage fee - Revision history

109.157.79.50: /* -> "Use fee" */ Anyway, '''don't move''' the page because it's called a usage fee in the game: "Usage fee, ''n'' zorkmids," the shopkeeper says. Get it changed in the game first if you want to move this page.

2015-01-25T20:58:58Z

‎-> "Use fee": Anyway, '''don't move''' the page because it's called a usage fee in the game: "Usage fee, ''n'' zorkmids," the shopkeeper says. Get it changed in the game first if you want to move this page.

109.157.79.50: /* -> "Use fee" */ Personally I feel that "usage fee" is the idiomatic form, and "use fee" sounds strange, ''but'' I just did a cursory search on Google Books and found 28,300 instances of "the use fee" compared with 3,720 of "the usage fee". I'm surprise

2015-01-25T20:57:27Z

‎-> "Use fee": Personally I feel that "usage fee" is the idiomatic form, and "use fee" sounds strange, ''but'' I just did a cursory search on Google Books and found 28,300 instances of "the use fee" compared with 3,720 of "the usage fee". I'm surprise

91.22.150.120: /* -> "Use fee" */ new section

2015-01-25T01:14:43Z

‎-> "Use fee": new section

Ion frigate at 13:15, 17 April 2011

2011-04-17T13:15:53Z

Qazmlpok: /* Filthy vs Stinking Rich */

2011-04-16T23:39:20Z

‎Filthy vs Stinking Rich

Tjr: vote "filthy", why.

2011-04-16T21:32:35Z

vote "filthy", why.

AileTheAlien: filthy vs stinking

2011-04-16T17:26:33Z

filthy vs stinking

New page

== Filthy vs Stinking Rich ==
I've heard both these phrases used, and am wondering which should be the official one on this page.
Looking at the origins of [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/filthy-rich.html filthy rich] and [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/stinking-rich.html stinking rich], one finds that they have different origins, and uses:
* filthy -> got rich by dishonorable means
* stinking -> so rich that you would be buried in an above-ground mausoleum and hence start to smell
These both seem equally appropriate in a game where you can either be nice, or a backstabbing swindling dirtbag.
However, the fact that dead characters reside in graves lends ''slight'' favor to ''"filthy"''.
Thoughts?
--[[User:AileTheAlien|AileTheAlien]] 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 25 January 2015
Line 18:		Line 18:
	"Usage" is usually a superfluous fancification of the noun "use". In particular, a fee for using something is a "use fee", not a "usage fee". Information about how to use words and phrases is "usage", and information about how often something is used is also "usage". But if you are charged money for using a thing once, you're paying for the use of it. If no overwhelming objections, I will move this page to "Use fee" and let "Usage fee" redirect to that. [[Special:Contributions/91.22.150.120\|91.22.150.120]] 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)		"Usage" is usually a superfluous fancification of the noun "use". In particular, a fee for using something is a "use fee", not a "usage fee". Information about how to use words and phrases is "usage", and information about how often something is used is also "usage". But if you are charged money for using a thing once, you're paying for the use of it. If no overwhelming objections, I will move this page to "Use fee" and let "Usage fee" redirect to that. [[Special:Contributions/91.22.150.120\|91.22.150.120]] 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

−	: Personally I feel that "usage fee" is the idiomatic form, and "use fee" sounds strange, ''but'' I just did a cursory search on Google Books and found 28,300 instances of "the use fee" compared with 3,720 of "the usage fee". I'm surprised. [[Special:Contributions/109.157.79.50\|109.157.79.50]] 20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)	+	: Personally I feel that "usage fee" is the idiomatic form, and "use fee" sounds strange, ''but'' I just did a cursory search on Google Books and found 28,300 instances of "the use fee" compared with 3,720 of "the usage fee". I'm surprised. Anyway, '''don't move''' the page because it's called a usage fee in the game: "Usage fee, ''n'' zorkmids," the shopkeeper says. Get it changed in the game first if you want to move this page. [[Special:Contributions/109.157.79.50\|109.157.79.50]] 20:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 25 January 2015
Line 17:		Line 17:

	"Usage" is usually a superfluous fancification of the noun "use". In particular, a fee for using something is a "use fee", not a "usage fee". Information about how to use words and phrases is "usage", and information about how often something is used is also "usage". But if you are charged money for using a thing once, you're paying for the use of it. If no overwhelming objections, I will move this page to "Use fee" and let "Usage fee" redirect to that. [[Special:Contributions/91.22.150.120\|91.22.150.120]] 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)		"Usage" is usually a superfluous fancification of the noun "use". In particular, a fee for using something is a "use fee", not a "usage fee". Information about how to use words and phrases is "usage", and information about how often something is used is also "usage". But if you are charged money for using a thing once, you're paying for the use of it. If no overwhelming objections, I will move this page to "Use fee" and let "Usage fee" redirect to that. [[Special:Contributions/91.22.150.120\|91.22.150.120]] 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Personally I feel that "usage fee" is the idiomatic form, and "use fee" sounds strange, ''but'' I just did a cursory search on Google Books and found 28,300 instances of "the use fee" compared with 3,720 of "the usage fee". I'm surprised. [[Special:Contributions/109.157.79.50\|109.157.79.50]] 20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:14, 25 January 2015
Line 13:		Line 13:
	::I vote neither, as the article uses the term simply to mean "extremely rich" without necessarily carrying the negative connotations of "filthy" or "stinking". It doesn't at all matter ''how'' the character got rich. Simply using "extrmely" or even nothing at all would work fine. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)		::I vote neither, as the article uses the term simply to mean "extremely rich" without necessarily carrying the negative connotations of "filthy" or "stinking". It doesn't at all matter ''how'' the character got rich. Simply using "extrmely" or even nothing at all would work fine. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
	:::Seconded: I changed the article accordingly, and also added the possibility of wishing for gold to pay for a wand of wishing (with notes that in both cases, it's not hard to just find the gold to pay for the item). -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 13:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)		:::Seconded: I changed the article accordingly, and also added the possibility of wishing for gold to pay for a wand of wishing (with notes that in both cases, it's not hard to just find the gold to pay for the item). -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 13:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== -> "Use fee" ==
		+
		+	"Usage" is usually a superfluous fancification of the noun "use". In particular, a fee for using something is a "use fee", not a "usage fee". Information about how to use words and phrases is "usage", and information about how often something is used is also "usage". But if you are charged money for using a thing once, you're paying for the use of it. If no overwhelming objections, I will move this page to "Use fee" and let "Usage fee" redirect to that. [[Special:Contributions/91.22.150.120\|91.22.150.120]] 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 17 April 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:I vote "filthy rich", but my English is a bit rusty. Ideally, a native speaker currently living in America or Britain would decide. --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)		:I vote "filthy rich", but my English is a bit rusty. Ideally, a native speaker currently living in America or Britain would decide. --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
	::I vote neither, as the article uses the term simply to mean "extremely rich" without necessarily carrying the negative connotations of "filthy" or "stinking". It doesn't at all matter ''how'' the character got rich. Simply using "extrmely" or even nothing at all would work fine. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)		::I vote neither, as the article uses the term simply to mean "extremely rich" without necessarily carrying the negative connotations of "filthy" or "stinking". It doesn't at all matter ''how'' the character got rich. Simply using "extrmely" or even nothing at all would work fine. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
		+	:::Seconded: I changed the article accordingly, and also added the possibility of wishing for gold to pay for a wand of wishing (with notes that in both cases, it's not hard to just find the gold to pay for the item). -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 13:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 16 April 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:
	:Quoting filthy: ''It has become to mean "extremely rich" rather than "dishonourably rich", although there may still be a trace of an unfavourable implication associated with it.'' Other sources make no mention of the negative connotation ([http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/filthy+rich ], [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=filthy+rich ]), and Google finds three times as many pages for [[google:"filthy rich"]].		:Quoting filthy: ''It has become to mean "extremely rich" rather than "dishonourably rich", although there may still be a trace of an unfavourable implication associated with it.'' Other sources make no mention of the negative connotation ([http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/filthy+rich ], [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=filthy+rich ]), and Google finds three times as many pages for [[google:"filthy rich"]].
	:I vote "filthy rich", but my English is a bit rusty. Ideally, a native speaker currently living in America or Britain would decide. --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)		:I vote "filthy rich", but my English is a bit rusty. Ideally, a native speaker currently living in America or Britain would decide. --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
		+	::I vote neither, as the article uses the term simply to mean "extremely rich" without necessarily carrying the negative connotations of "filthy" or "stinking". It doesn't at all matter ''how'' the character got rich. Simply using "extrmely" or even nothing at all would work fine. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 16 April 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Thoughts?		Thoughts?
	--[[User:AileTheAlien\|AileTheAlien]] 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:AileTheAlien\|AileTheAlien]] 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Quoting filthy: ''It has become to mean "extremely rich" rather than "dishonourably rich", although there may still be a trace of an unfavourable implication associated with it.'' Other sources make no mention of the negative connotation ([http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/filthy+rich ], [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=filthy+rich ]), and Google finds three times as many pages for [[google:"filthy rich"]].
		+	:I vote "filthy rich", but my English is a bit rusty. Ideally, a native speaker currently living in America or Britain would decide. --[[User:Tjr\|Tjr]] 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)