Talk:construction site

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

construction site

SoP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I created this deliberately to see if it would be deleted or not. Let the debate begin. ---> Tooironic 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A debate with no agreed-upon principles. Oh boy. Only Macmillan has it among OneLook dictionaries. Free Dictionary has it as a translation target. Clearly NISoP for decoding. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be useful for translators. In the languages that I know "construction site" isn't always simply a straightforward translation of "construction" + "site", e.g. Swedish (deprecated template usage) byggplats, German (deprecated template usage) Baustelle, Italian (deprecated template usage) cantiere, Finnish (deprecated template usage) rakennustyömaa. --Hekaheka 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we don't include entries for that reason. If we include construction site because it translates as rakennustyömaa, we include all sorts of noun phrases that translate into German words, and arbitrary phrases that translate into agglutinative languages' phrases. Even neglecting agglutinative languages and German compound nouns, we don't want to include there exists in one's possession just because it translates into יש, etc., etc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the thinkable ways of composing a term meaning "construction site" (building site, erection site, construction place, building place, erection place..) this appears to be by far the most popular. A set phrase? --Hekaheka 07:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At COCA it appears to meet coordination and modifier tests that would suggest it is indeed a set phrase. (See WT:English set phrases.) Keep DCDuring TALK 11:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were a valid reason to keep, note the 600,000 (first-page estimate) Web hits for "a construction or demolition|building site" and the forty-odd Books hits for that and "a demolition and|or construction site". I haven't checked for other terms in coordination.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree on alternative criteria. Keep despite CFI. DAVilla 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep at least as a translation target (non-CFI consideration), based on the Italian cantiere and Czech staveniště neither of which is a compounds word. The translations into long-compound-forming languages are not so convincing for the purpose (because arguing with these languages would possibly justify too many translation targets), but also useful. The set phrase consideration is also of merit. There is also a slight scent of idiomacity: a construction site is a place where construction is still ongoing rather than a site at which a building is located, right? --Dan Polansky 12:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  Invalid rationale. Make it a BP discussion and a vote. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  You seem to assume that a rationale must be already in CFI in order to be valid. I do not share this assumption. You yourself have argued with "set phrase", which I applaud, but a "set phrase" inclusion criterion is not specified in CFI. You have voted for deletion of some terms that are not sum of parts, outside of CFI. --Dan Polansky 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, but restore it if/when we allow this type of entry in CFI. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

kept, but added to Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. -- Prince Kassad 20:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)