Talk:satisne

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

Deletion discussion[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.


satisne[edit]

Not worth an entry. This is just the sum of satis + -ne, the latter of which sole introduces questions. --Fsojic (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. We've been through this before with uses of -que, and it's basically the same issue as with forms ending with -'s in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep until more convincing arguments are presented than those found at Talk:fasque#Deletion debate. I believe the deletion was not based on CFI. This would not be all that bad, but the salient difference to un-, -ness and English plural-forming -s for the purpose of worthiness of inclusion has not been made clear, IMHO. In my view, "-ne" is not a separate component and thus "satisne" cannot be deleted with the use of WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. Moreover, the definition of "satisne" says "introducing questions" and thus the item seems phrasy, and thus worthy of inclusion. --Dan Polansky (talk)
    Since you've voted against making CFI binding, I assume you mean the fact that the deletion wasn't based on CFI is a good thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    In Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep, I said that each argument for keeping should be based on CFI as far as possible; I actually meant that even arguments for deletion should be based on CFI as far as possible. When I make an argument in terms of "translation target", I acknowledge that this is not in CFI. I see no acknowledgment in this nomination and in the pro-deletion arguments that this nomination lies outside of CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The difference between -ne and English un-, -ness and plural-form -s is that the English forms are affixes that are restricted in the forms they can be added to and that change the meaning of the word they're added to. Latin -ne is a clitic that can be placed after literally any Latin word that can be the first word in a clause (which because of Latin's free word order amounts to any virtually word at all) and doesn't change the meaning of that word but rather marks the entire clause as being a question. I suspect the primary reason this entry exists at all is to give satin and satine something to link to; but they can link just as well to [[satis]][[-ne|ne]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    It's a compound word. Compound words have no spaces, so they should be kept. Purplebackpack89 17:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Question On satin, the examples include "Satin' omnia ex sententia?" and "Satin' salva sunt omnia?" (presumably these are equally applicable to satisne too, but please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see the immediate connection here to satis meaning "enough" - I don't know much Latin, so I have to ask: could these sentences be reworded to make another word lead the sentence ("Salvane satis sunt omnia?"?), or is satin saying something other than "isn't there enough...?" here? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Smurrayinchester: Lewis and Short define "ne2" as follows: "-nĕ (also apocopated n' and only n ),
    I. interrog. and enclit. part. [weakened from nē]. It simply inquires, without implying either that a negative or an affirmative reply is expected (cf. num, nonne), and emphasizes the word to which it is joined; “which is always, in classic Latin, the first word of the clause (ante- class. after other words: sine dote uxoremne?”
    So, in classical Latin the shift of the particle from satis to salva shifts the focus of the question in a way I am not competent to explain or translate. I didn't get that from the various usage examples at our entry for [[-ne]] and especially not from those at [[satisne]] which I would not rely on without some further confirmation. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I’m slightly tempted to suggest a redirection to -ne, but that would open the floodgates to hundreds of redirections. --Romanophile (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Why would this redirect to -ne rather than to satis? bd2412 T 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Lewis and Short has satin' as an entry, defined as "satisne", but not satisne. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    User:DCDuring: Lewis and Short have no inflected forms either, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If there are contracted forms of this particular word, I would keep it. From the lay person's point of view, it looks like a single word. bd2412 T 21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per bd2412. I'm not much of a Latin scholar, so running across a single word like satisne, I would have no reason to guess that this is satis + -ne. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • How is that relevant? --Fsojic (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      @Fsojic: Many here seem to believe that we should lexicalize as much as possible of language, including all compounds, collocations, orthography, and grammar. So someone with LA-1 knowledge of Latin grammar should find entries that compensate for that lack of knowledge. A charitable view would be that such entries would provide an instance from which such a learner could inductively learn the grammar. Whether Wiktionary entries, rather than Wiktionary usage examples and citations or Wikipedia articles or Wikisource texts or, heaven forfend, something outside the WMF world, should provide those instances is not a question that has been addressed. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          • @Fsojic, DCDuring What is a word? We say, all words in all languages. To my eyes, satisne is a word. There is no obvious way for me to parse this as anything but one word, especially when it appears in running text with clear whitespace on either side. If someone runs across this term and attempts to look it up, not having some means of directing the user to a definition is a usability issue. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
            Where's the whitespace?
            "All words in all languages" is a slogan, not a practical guide to anything that we do at this moment. As for clear whitespace defining words, see the image of Latin text. Where are the spaces? How many words? I don't think usability means that we have to hold a user's hand through all elements of grammar that might appear. Learning how to parse something written without a space into its components is not dissimilar from learning the word-order conventions of a language. You aren't recommending that we include all English sentences because not everyone coming to Wiktionary is familiar with SVO order, are you? Or that we include all collocations involving postpositive adjectives because that positioning is exceptional? -ne and -que can appear on almost any form of almost any Latin word. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
            • The third-person present ending -s can appear on almost any English verb. That doesn't mean we delete all entries for third-person present verb forms.
            And don't be silly with the carving. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 2008, Mary Jaeger, Archimedes and the Roman Imagination, University of Michigan Press →ISBN, pages 33-34
    ...lived. After telling the story of Dionysius, Damocles, and the sword in some detail, Cicero asks, “Does not Dionyius seem to have made it sufficiently clear [satisne videtur declarasse Dionysius] that there can be nothing happy [beatum] for the person over whom some fear always looms?” (5.62). After a brief...
          • I agree with respect to the carving. An English speaker who comes across something like that is going to recognize that spaces are missing; if they come across a transcription of it, it is a fair bet that the transcriber will have added the appropriate spaces, and that multiple instances of the same character string missing the same spaces will not be found in printed works. bd2412 T 20:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
            @BD2412, Eirikr Most Ancient Greek and Latin texts, not just inscriptions, were written without spaces or any other distinct marker of word division. Readers were expected to be able to distinguish word boundaries by the inflectional endings. Word boundaries, often designated by dots rather than spaces, were an invention of Medieval or at least post-Classical scribes. Why they didn't insert spaces between ne and que and the preceding words I don't know. So, I take it that the audience we address does not include someone trying to read an inscription from a photo, in a museum, or on the remains of a Classical building. It just seems that we have a self-serving view of whom we are serving: people a lot like us or us as we nostalgically remember ourselves, reading the heavily edited documents in print that have been handed us. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
            I think that this concern is addressed with the Chinese terms below. Where there are spaces, the spaces are understood to delineate words. Were there are none, readers recognize that some other system of delineation must be in place. Either way, satisne is a word having abundant citations in spaced text, so we don't need to speculate about how to address its appearance in other media. There are CFI-worthy citations of satisne as a distinctly spaced word, and that by itself justifies inclusion. bd2412 T 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
            Addressing one audience by including words with -ne does not mean that we aren't addressing other audiences. It does not affect the other audiences at all. The vast majority of our users are reading documents in print, as the vast majority of people who actually read anything in the 21st century do; I scoff at this idea that we have many scholars staring at a monument newly discovered who are poking words into their cellphones to look the text up on Wiktionary, and even if they all did, we'd still have far more people working from texts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't any combination of Chinese symbols appear to be a single word to someone who doesn't speak Chinese? That's what we're talking about here, how non-Latin speakers view Latin entries. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Anyone looking at Chinese quickly comes to the conclusion that whitespace doesn't happen in Chinese. The next step is figuring out which clump of characters constitutes a "word" for purposes of looking things up. This is a problem for all learners of languages that use Chinese characters and no whitespace.
          Latin, meanwhile, does use whitespace, and in any Latin sentence that includes the term satisne, satisne is clearly delineated by whitespace as a "word". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          Whitespace or dots to mark word divisions is a post-Classical innovation. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Chuck Entz. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: We include word forms, no? If we have an entry for isn't or feet or unsubstantiated, why not for satisne? What are the criteria here? Why delete one, but not the others? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: We include some but not all forms in English. English has a relatively small number of contractions, which we include. English has a open set of possessive forms of nouns, which we exclude. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • -ne can and does occur after many inflected forms of the stems. The Lewis and Short entry for -ne has usage examples involving about twenty stems and several different inflections. We don't usually require attestation for each inflected form in Latin, so I suppose we should have inflection tables for every word that could have -ne appended that shows our benighted users and our search engine what each form with -ne would look like. All you Latinists should get started. All the lay persons reading Latin need you. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • But who's going to be reading Latin without knowing at least a little bit of Latin? This isn't some esoteric corner of Latin grammar; Latin students probably learn about -ne being used to form questions in their first week of Latin class. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I have no recollection of that from my Latin class. Then again, all I remember from that class is "Romanes eunt domus". Still, since we absolutely can require attestation if we want, I propose that we include attested -ne forms, because they look like whole and distinct words by most any definition of "word" that we employ. bd2412 T 15:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Angr You're assuming that the only people looking up Latin in the EN WT are doing so because they are reading Latin texts. Latin does show up from time to time in regular English texts when authors throw some in for flavor or style or bragging rights or what-have-you. I don't know Latin. I don't read Latin texts. If I run across Latin in some other text that I'm reading, I would probably come here to try to look up the terms and ferret out the meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        @Eirikr: That's why we have professional translators and that poor man's translator Google Translate. The question is what portion of their work should Wiktionary try to do? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Whatever portion is covered by "all words in all languages". bd2412 T 20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          Begging the question: What's a word? Not to mention the need to parse each component of our slogan, whose greatest use is to vanquish any practical considerations. Is a word whatever any reader might think is a word? I'll leave others to anticipate whatever those might be. We risk becoming a caricature of ourselves. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          "In English and other space-delimited languages, it is customary to treat "word" as referring to any sequence of characters delimited by spaces". Source: Wiktionary. bd2412 T 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          That's not the definition we use. We include terms with intervening spaces all the time, also affixes which are not spaced, etc. I doubt that I've exhausted the departures from the definition for English, let alone for other languages.
          In any event, we claim that we follow the practice traditional to the scholarship of whatever language a entry would be in. I doubt that there is a consensus of Latin scholars favoring any term consisting of a Latin inflected form + a clitic like -ne or -que. I doubt that Latin language teachers would recommend a dictionary that bothered with such "words" for their students at any level. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
          That's our own usage note. I would suggest that it represents a floor, not a ceiling, to inclusion. We include some, but not all, terms with spaces; but we include virtually every attested unspaced string of characters written in a language that does use spaces to delineate words. If someone brought sidesaddle or unkempt or my own addition, thisclose, to RfD, they would be laughed out. bd2412 T 03:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
          In English, yes, but people have brought spaceless German compounds to RFD and have not been laughed out; rather, they have gained a certain amount of support for their position (though never, I think, enough to actually achieve deletion). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no reason to exclude these space-delimited words. If it's really as trivial as is claimed, a bot should be able to add them quickly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    Also, as an English speaker, it seems like every time I enter a word, I'm facing Plural form of ... or Present participle of ..., and it's never a case where I couldn't have lemmatized it myself. It's annoying (though I offer no solutions right now), but less annoying then running into the search box. I suspect even good Latin readers will enter forms with -ne, because that's what they have in front of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a single word. The "what about 's" argument is a poor one because "'s" is a contraction. Purplebackpack89 04:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    No, in something like "the cat's pajamas", cat's is not a contraction of anything. I'd say the difference is more about ', like -, is not an alphabetic character, and the separation into parts is necessarily obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – as a Latin speaker I feel keeping this is embarrassing for Wiktionary, as if we couldn't tell that not all things that are written without spaces are necessarily words. The same arguments at Talk:fasque apply here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Am I correct in understanding that -que is attached to whatever happens to be the first word of the clause, no matter what word that is, and -ne is the same in this regard? bd2412 T 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
      • -ne is attached to whatever happens to be the first word of the clause; -que is attached to anything to produce the meaning "and X", so in a list it could be the last word of the clause. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Metaknowledge You say, “as a Latin speaker”. Please be aware of your bias in this. EN WT is for English speakers (well, readers really). If someone runs across satisne and doesn't know the rules of Latin, how are they to find out what it means? How are they to find out what its constituent parts are? We must make allowances for users who don't have the knowledge that we editors do. I've made changes to my own approach to the Japanese entries that I create and maintain as a result of user feedback, as that feedback has enlightened me as to my own biases and how that might cloud my judgment regarding what is useful here.
So far, most of the arguments above for deletion have been made by editors who already have knowledge of Latin, and the arguments are based on an assumption of user foreknowledge (that users should know that satisne is satis + -ne), with a sprinkling of points seeking to shame the community (that no “proper” Latin dictionary would ever include satisne, and therefore we shouldn't either).
Serious query: if a user comes here with no Latin knowledge and searches for satisne, how will that user be directed to the desired information if we have no satisne entry? If we have some means of directing such searches to the appropriate entry or entries, then I have no opposition to deleting satisne. Until then, however, from a basic usability perspective, it does not make sense to delete this entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Eirikr This is not a dictionary that is intending to be of maximal help to the lowest common denominator, so to speak. If somebody doesn't know what the ablative is, telling them that utor takes it is entirely unhelpful, but it's not our job to explain that there or even link to it. People learning Latin will want to know that, and that's who our Latin entries are for. Foreign-language dictionaries have always been made under the assumption that the person looking up the words knows the bare basics of the language, and, as Angr said, this is something that is taught very early on in most courses. You should be just as aware of your bias as a non-Latin speaker, because you may not be familiar with people who actually use our Latin content as a learning tool, but I interact with many people in real life who do, and they are in agreement that our Latin entries serve their purposes well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Addressing just one narrow issue of the several you raise here, what harm does it do to include satisne? I have not yet read a clear argument as to what is harmful to EN WT in including this entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    As we haven't a model to follow and rarely are able to produce good entries, especially for grammatical terms in the absence of a model, we are likely to present users with crap, such as the present entry. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It is very hard to help someone who doesn't know the grammar of a language, which is not normally taught in a purely inductive, lexical way. If we were to try to do so, here are some basic ideas for the entry:
  1. Entries:
    1. {{&lit|satis|-ne}}, making sure that we actually had a complete and correct grammatical presentation at the component entries (which we do not in the case of -ne AFAICT).
    2. An accurate translation of each of the various attestable combinations of satis (many at satis in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Pressand -ne (6 in ne2 in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press)
  2. Redirects, presumably to something that explains what we deem troublesome because of the grammatical functions of -ne:
    1. To applicable WP article, if any. [I didn't find one.]
    2. To -ne. [needs work]
    3. To a Wiktionary grammar appendix on -ne [doesn't exist]
I haven't seen much good grammar content here, nor have I been able to do a good job myself when I tried. I can't imagine anyone doing the work to find all the attestable combinations senses of satis and senses of -ne.
Who will sign up for making sure we have correct content for the attestable entries (and senses for 1.2)? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Eirikr Simply a case of slippery slope. If you let this in, then we have to have a massive amount of entries like fasque that don't do any good to the vast majority of people using en.wikt's Latin content, and that will take a tremendous amount of human effort. Please don't say it can be done by bot, because bots don't know how to check if something is attestable per CFI, so in that case you'd end up with a large amount of entries that human editors would RFV, if they ever got around to it, and just delete them again. To me, that sounds like a nightmare for everybody involved with almost no benefit (in fact a deficit, since it would waste editors' time when they could be doing something that would actually improve the dictionary). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason the rule could not be made to work the other way around. Allow {{&lit|satis|-ne}} and {{&lit|fas|-que}} types of entries, but only if three CFI-worthy citations exist in the entry at the time of its creation; speedy delete those that do no have the requisite citations. We make our rules here, so there's nothing to stop us from setting a higher bar for a specific class of words (or wordlike entities). Few editors are going to be motivated to add large numbers of "-ne" and "-que" forms for the sake of so doing if they are in every case required to find the citations first. bd2412 T 02:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but you're proposing a change in policy. That would require consensus in the Beer Parlour, if not an outright vote. I don't have a problem with your idea, but as things stand, that's not an option. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy supporting deletion of "satisne". "satisne" does not consist of separate components, so it is not sum of parts per WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. You are voting here counter to policy, without admitting as much. As for slippery slope, we have this: Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation vs. the slippery slope. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
They are separate components. The two components have nothing to do with each other syntactically or morphologically. They just happen to be spelled without a space between them, but that's just orthography (which has nothing to do with language). They're no more closely related to each other than to and ’s in That’s the boy I was talking to’s mother. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
They are not. The following is irrelevant: "The two components have nothing to do with each other syntactically or morphologically." "head" and "ache" in "headache" are not separate; their syntactic or morphological relation is irrelevant to separateness. Thus, we include coalmine since "coal" and "mine" are not separate, while we need a dedicated additional regulation to include coal mine. And we include Zirkusschule: Talk:Zirkusschule. The syntactic relations of the components in "coalmine" are the same as the syntactic relations of the components in "coal mine"; the only thing that distinguishes the two terms for the purpose of separatedness is that one is written without a space and the other one with a space. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant at all. What is irrelevant is whether there's a written space or not. The reason "head" and "ache" in "headache" are not separate is that they are semantically (I should have included "semantically" above) and morphologically related to and dependent on each other, as are the "coal" and "mine" in both "coalmine" and "coal mine". But there is no linguistic relationship between satis and -ne at all; they are completely separate of each other. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
By your reasoning, we would have to include car producer; the semantic and syntactic relationships of the components of car producer are the same as those of the components of headache, and thus you would have it that "car" and "producer" are not separate. By contrast, I claim that we exclude "<noun1> <noun2>" compounds as long as their meaning is clear from the meanings of <noun1> and <noun2> (barring the translation target exception). Thus, I claim the components of "car producer" to be separate while the components of "headache" to be not separate. I rest my case; being written together without space matters for separateness; syntactic, morphological and semantic relations don't. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
By your reasoning, we'd have to include to's from my example above, not to mention whole paragraphs of Chinese since that's written without spaces. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You left my "car producer" objection unrefuted. Now for your objection with to's: the components are separated by the apostrophe ('), and hence are separate, by my lights. Similarly, many editors here consider hyphen separating enough, while at least one editor does not. In Chinese, if a whole paragaph is written without space, then spaces are not used in such Chinese writing to separate words, and the case is thereby not under the present analysis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather see car producer here than satisne; at least car producer has a meaning (although the usual collocation is car manufacturer). Chinese shows that we need a linguistic definition of word, not an orthographic one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
So it remains: you left my "car producer" objection unrefuted. You have presented no criterion of separatedness that would enable us to exclude a large number of "<noun1> <noun2>" compounds as semantically transparent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a very special case, but it may be useful to some readers, especially beginners, this is why it should be accepted, provided that there are quotations. @Metaknowledge: I don't promote the creation of many such pages, but I think that there are no reason to delete them once they are created (with correct information). Deleting them wastes editors' time, and may discourage their creators, which is bad for the project. Lmaltier (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this deserves an entry as much as fasque. On the other hand, the community decided that fasque didn't deserve an entry. I abstain. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to have wound down, I summarize it as follows:

The issue here is that "satisne" is basically a coincidental and purely automatic construction. By comparison, if two men participate in a high jump competition, we could say: "the one who jumped higher's shoes were blue", but we don't consider "higher's" a word worthy of a dictionary entry. Editors supporting inclusion contend that this is distinct because an English speaker not familiar with such constructions in Latin and seeing "satisne" in normally spaced running text would interpret it as a single word, and no satisfactory alternative has been presented to assist such readers in defining this construction.

Seven editors supported deletion: Fsojic, Chuck Entz, Ungoliant, Metaknowledge, Aɴɢʀ, DCDuring, Romanophile.

Six editors supported inclusion: Dan Polansky, BD2412, Eiríkr, Prosfilaes, Purplebackpack89, Lmaltier. Two of these editors have supported an intermediate standard which would allow for the inclusion of such terms conditioned on the inclusion of citations in the entry, but it has been pointed out that no policy supports such a middle ground at this time.

One editor expressly abstained: -sche.

There is no consensus for deletion at this time; although there is a reasonable justification for deletion if such a consensus existed, there an absence of a clear policy requirement that would mandate deletion even absent such consensus. I would encourage the community to implement a policy establishing a higher burden of citation for such entries. bd2412 T 17:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Similar or related discussions[edit]

Talk:fasque (deletion of words in -que), Talk:antse (deletion of words with a phrase-final clitic -e that attaches to anything). - -sche (discuss) 15:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)