Talk:roof tile

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.

---

Per floor tile, which I wouldn't have minded keeping. But User:Duncan MacCall said they should be treated themselves. I abstain until I see what some other people think. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The closed form rooftile is google books:"rooftile" attestable. So "roof tile" should be kept. floor tile should be undeleted per the existence of floortile. If CFI does not meet this criteria, CFI should be amended, to the effect of "A multi-word term shall be included if its closed form, meaning one without spaces, meets inclusion criteria". --Dan Polansky 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also #coal mine. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we need to change CFI on this, or get this kept and floor tile restored first then go to WT:VOTE. I actually agree so keep, restore floor tile and change CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per CFI. (I take it there is not any evidence that it would meet current CFI.)

Make the proposal to change CFI. I don't now have a firm opinion about such a change. An alternative form/spelling does not have to meet CFI or be wikilinked. The alternative form will lead internal searches to rooftile and we could make it easier for search engines to find the compound. We could have a usage note if the alternative forms are more common. Perhaps if the open form is more common that would warrant keeping it as an entry even if it did not otherwise meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we should grant unprecedented deference to CFI as long as it remains in a suicide pact with WT:VOTE (a suicide pact that arose unplanned from the half-assed cleanup of the egomaniacal mess left behind by Richardb in '06, not out of any visible consensus). Fix the policy process, then we can see about following it. "In the wiki but not of the wiki" = dead letter IMO. -- Visviva 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the proposed rationale. It drives me nuts to create entries for a rare single-word form of some (apparently) sum-of-parts phrase that is far more commonly written as two words, while being unable to create an entry for the primary form. Apart from being stupid, this creates distortions in the fabric of translations and synonymy. The proposed rationale would also give us a plausible basis for considering something a "set phrase" -- if it's sometimes written as a single word, that's a pretty strong indicator of setness. But this is the first time I can recall this particular rationale being suggested, and the other entry has already been deleted. Couldn't we have had this discussion earlier? Weak abstain on the specific question, support Dan's rationale in general. -- Visviva 00:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the "Isn't it spelled solid or with a hyphen?" question is one of the Pawley criteria for idiomaticity. Would we want to enact the entire set of Pawley criteria? Wasn't that considered and rejected? Do we want to reopen the discussion of such extensions of idiomaticity or address the various proper noun proposals first? DCDuring TALK 00:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd been using (an adopted version of) the Pawley criteria all along -- not by policy, but as a rough map of the idiomaticity minefield. We wouldn't want to follow any outside criteria blindly, certainly, but WT:SURVIVOR suggests that we've been following at least a few. An advantage of this test is that, unlike say the "fried egg" test, it can be applied without resort to introspection, which is always fallible. -- Visviva 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How would anyone except a long-standing veteran know that we were and what it meant that we were? I'm not suggesting a vote. I'm suggesting a guidelines page (ie editable, at least by admins) that someone could read, so that they might be able to join us and help. Was there a problem with the reference text that had been in use? The criteria seem almost to allow any multi-word term anyone is likely to want to enter, except that it does not have the translation-target criterion. DCDuring TALK 03:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It's a word. In many languages, it's translated as one word. sour cream is not just cream and a roof tile is not just a tile. Even in German Dachziegel, there's Dach (roof) but Ziegel is a brick or roof tile, not a tile. --Anatoli 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep (I thought we'd already discussed this somewhere.) Per OED, roof-tile, also roof tile, can refer to a ridge tile—not just any tile for the roof. —Michael Z. 2009-09-29 04:27 z

Kept, strong consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed the rfd-tag. --Hekaheka 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)