Talk:car door

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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


"the door of a car" - is this dictionary material? SemperBlotto 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's appropriate, because a car door, like a garage door, is significantly different from other doors. It's specifically designed for a car, just like a garage door is specifically designed for a garage, unlike a bathroom door or a bedroom door which are not designed specifically for those rooms. Fark 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition does not tell us anything more than the phrase itself. What else could a ‘car door’ be? Widsith 09:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. I suppose you haven't Fark 13:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, dictionary material. Certainly can have different translations, and as User:Fark points out, is not any door for a car, such as a garage door. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have seen your comment. It doesn't convince me at all: yes, a car door is different from other doors, but that difference is amply described by the use of the qualifying word ‘car’. The definition cannot tell us anything more than the phrase itself. And I don't agree with Connel – it is not inconceivable that you could use ‘car door’ to mean ‘a door through which a car goes’ – e.g. of a ferry you might say, ‘That's the car door, that's the foot-passenger door.’ This definition at the moment is totally useless – it's just a rearrangement of the words in the entry title. This is normal English – one noun qualifying another noun. There's nothing else to say about it! Widsith 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than go over this again, and again, please explain what you mean. From my POV, your assessment is simply wrong; I'd like to understand why you oppose having such a reasonable, helpful entry. "Car door" can be used as you say, for a ferry, but that is not the normal meaning ascribed when one says "car door" - it would only work the way you say, in a very specific (unusual) context. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the way the noun car qualifies the noun door is not in the least idiomatic. The sense is exactly as expected – ‘door pertaining to a car’. Yes, it's normally used of a door in a car, but it doesn't preclude other interpretations. The sense is identical to car roof, car seat etc etc. Any two nouns in English can be put together in this way (well, within reason). And the argument that it is made specifically for a car really has nothing to do with it – the same could be said for doll-house door or indeed Honda door, Jaguar door etc. Widsith 15:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have the same objection to including garage door? Fark 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely. The door from my hallway into the garage is called the garage door, and it isn't ‘long and low’ as this definition says. There is no way to define the term beyond saying that it's a door to a garage, and that is saying no more than the phrase itself. Widsith 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
While Jaguar door almost certainly doesn't meet the attestation aspects of our criteria, car door certainly does. I don't recall seeing that two nouns used in comination need to be idiomatic for inclusion here; I'd argue against that proposition if someone made it. I don't see the benefit of fighting against reasonable entries. It is a set colocation of two nouns, that together almost always mean a certain thing. While not truly idiomatic, it does seem to meet my notion of a "set phrase." --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Does it? Oh all right. You ask me what the benefit of fighting against this term is. The benefit to my mind is that it stops us looking amateurish. There is no point adding a term to Wiktionary if our definition does no more than restate the headwords. The only reason to have it would be to make a point that it cannot be used in any other sense, which as it happens is not the case. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this? Widsith 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems pretty borderline to me, but it passes Pawley test #2 because we can say a gull-wing door is a type of car door. Adding subtypes of car doors also makes the page look less pointless. Kappa 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of adding an entry such as this is to express how a term is commonly used, as this entry does. It seems obvious to me that your opposition to this entry is an opposition not to the term itself, but rather, opposition to the Wiktionary practice of including set phrases, or anything that is not an idiom (if the headword contains a space.) Forgive me if this sounds amateurish, but that objection seems like a waste of time. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Connel, it's an opposition to the term itself. Otherwise rest assured I will say so. Widsith 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it time we had a firm policy on such terms? Every time someone creates one like it, we get the same old "X + Y is the sum of its parts: delete - that's not a valid reason: keep - it means what is says so there's no point in defining it: delete - but it's not just any X + Y: keep" arguments. Perhaps Pawley should be put in a place where everyone sees it.

There are some good reasons above for keeping this term, which, to my mind, suggest we should keep it. The fact that the definition is a rearrangement of the words being defined is not a valid argument against the term. The criterion is whether or not the term is idiomatic, that is, whether it has a specific meaning not deducible from its components.

So "car door" can be used to refer to the door to a railway car (carriage), or the door into the passenger compartment of a hot-air balloon, but, specifically, it means the door of an automobile. If you hear someone saying "I saw a car door lying in the road", you know that it is the door of an automobile that is being referred to rather than any of the other possible meanings.

Similarly, "garage door" could refer to the door to the garage in one's house, as Widsith uses it above, or the door of a garage where you buy petrol/gasoline, but specifically it means the main entrance of a garage in which a car can be stored.

The existence of these specific meanings suggests that these terms should be in.

Note, as always, that the "slippery slope" argument does not apply - allowing "car door" and "garage door" does not mean that we automatically must allow "train door", "taxi door", "shed door", "cabin door" and every other combination of X + "door" - each of these would be considered on its own merits if it came to be entered in Wiktionary. (None of them would stay, I would imagine.) — Paul G 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Widsith for all his reasons. Also I cant see the point of trivial phrases whose meaning is absolutely obvious, and can be easily ascertained by looking up one or both of the words. I cannot see even the most ignorant uneducated non-natrive speaker dashing to his computer to look up a phrase like this! It beggers belief. However rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)