Talk:ex-stepfather

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for verification[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

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

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


And other similar. An ex-X. SemperBlotto 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you maybe mean this for RFD? google books:"ex-stepfather" pulls up a few hundred hits. —RuakhTALK 17:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you can put ex- in front of thousands of nouns, right? I mean how do "ex-mechanic" and "ex-footballer" do on Google Books? Rfd seems reasonable here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, should be at RFD; now that it's here, though, I say to delete.​—msh210 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, let's make this an ex-entry. bd2412 T 00:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Verily, if I had the capacity, I’d delete this.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete if/when moved to RFD. Equinox 18:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to RFD.RuakhTALK 14:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


ex-stepfather

Was listed at RFV. The consensus was that it belongs here instead. —RuakhTALK 14:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly sum of parts, but if you consider it to be one word rather than two, wouldn't we have to keep it? Special:PrefixIndex indicates a few more of the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah the great dilemma of sum-of-partness of affixed word. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of deleting. Circeus 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The definition doesn't seem accurate, which might be a sign that there is more than one reading of this, which might be a CFI-relevant reason to keep it. If one is an adult when one's mother marries a man, is that person thereby one's stepfather in English usage? I think not. I suppose this is really my issue with many definitions of stepfather.
OTOH, the definition focuses so much on the relationship to the mother that the definition seems "idiomatic". Isn't this just "a stepfather from whom a child's (natural only or also adoptive?) mother has divorced"? No OneLook reference has the RfDed term, so if we keep it we should attest it and have a full and satisfactory entry, probably with at least one citation per sense. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW keep, this is stepfather prefixed with ex-. It's sum of parts, but catlike, noteworthy and readable are also sum of parts, but it doesn't matter because they are all one word. So is this, ergo it is not elligible for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
To choose another example, who would like to see re-lay deleted as sum of parts (re- + lay). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete as SoP. Anglophones will look up the parts of a word that has a hyphen in it, whereas they will treat catlike as one word. (I've no data to support this contention.) Do we really want ex-football player (bgc), ex-movie star (bgc), etc.?​—msh210 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As I say, if you treat ex- as a prefix, this wouldn't qualify for deletion. I'd accept cat-like and god-like, but Tetris-like is listed for deletion. So I'll abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus.​—msh210 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)