Talk:exploitative competition

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

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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

exploitative competition[edit]

Not sure whether this is RfV or RfD. It is uncited and either encyclopedic or SoP. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV or keep directly. It didn't say what I thought it would, so... Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a specialized scientific term. Move to RfV. bd2412 T 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV.​—msh210 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

exploitative competition[edit]

From RFV:

Kept at RFD and sent hither.​—msh210 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

google books:"exploitative competition" gets a few thousand hits. Most or all are in this sense. Not all of them support the notion that it's a constituent — sometimes "exploitative" is modified by an adverb (e.g. "exclusively exploitative competition"), or "competition" is modified by another adjective in parallel with "exploitative" (e.g. "intraspecific, exploitative competition") — but those are issues for RFD rather than RFV, no? —RuakhTALK 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
To my understanding, it was kept at RFD and sent hither to look for cites that demonstrate the existence of an idiomatic phrase. You've mentioned tests, Ruakh, showing that a cite is no good for that (modification of exploitative by an adverb, another adjective in parallel); is there any test showing that a cite is good?​—msh210 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, a good cite is just one that isn't bad. A bad cite of an adjective-noun compound would have modification or coordination of the components. Neither is necessarily fatal, but might require time-consuming careful analysis and be subject to challenge. In this case, it would probably help if the cite came from the context and perhaps contrasted exploitative with other kinds of competition, but with both types of competition being expressed in full. To put it more positively, the quote should unambiguously highlight the exact term as a unit in the context, register, and grammar of the inflection line and the sense line. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I studied this in Ecology last year. It's certainly a specific type of competition, contrasted against "interference competition."
1994 Christopher S. Lobban & Paul James Harrison, Seaweed ecology and physiology, Cambridge University Press, p99
Exploitative competition involves a scramble for a limiting resource (e.g., space, light, nutrients) without direct antagonism between organisms. Interference competition results from interactions between organisms that may not relate directly (if at all) to any limiting resource... If interference competition is taking place, however, exploitative competition must also be potentially possible.
Ackatsis 10:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Move to RFD. I've added the relevant sense to [[exploitative]] and cited it outside the specific collocation "exploitative competition". Incidentally, exploitatively is also citeable in a corresponding sense — see e.g. google books:"compete exploitatively" — but if we define that adverb in some basic way ("in an exploitative manner" or somesuch) than it's moot. (BTW, I'm not particularly advocating deletion; I just think the previous RFD discussion was meaningless, since the participants don't seem to have examined citations and usage or anything. If we keep the entry, then we can simplify our definition of exploitative by referring to it.) —RuakhTALK 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete or redirect to [[exploitative]], I think.

RuakhTALK 16:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical term, whether or not it's a sum of however separable parts. Keep. DAVilla 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
How can you tell that it's a "technical term"? Obviously it's composed of two technical terms, but what makes it itself one? (Could you give an example of a sequence of technical terms that is not itself a technical term, and explain the difference? I'm not necessarily looking for objective criteria — though of course that would be ideal — just for something that makes clear what you mean by the phrase "technical term", and perhaps that makes clear why you think all "technical terms", in the sense that you mean it, should be kept regardless of SOP-ness.) —RuakhTALK 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Shit, I didn't realize exploitative was a technical term. I should have read the quoted text more carefully. No, you're right to delete this one, although I still think it makes sense to keep exceptional collocations like active volcano. DAVilla 07:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there an articulable reason why we should keep active volcano but not this, or is it just "gut feel"? (I mean, active (being an active volcano) is incredibly well attested. google books:"volcanoes were active" gets hundreds and hundreds of hits; google books:"Etna was active" gets twenty-some, and so on.) —RuakhTALK 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Number of hits at google is totally irrelevant. You can get google hits on sheer nonsense. Geof Bard 20:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

redirected -- Liliana 12:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)