The problem is that it isn't SoP when entries like yellow-throated marten and yellow-throated warbler are taken into account. There is nothing in WT:CFI about the names of species, so they are included by default and make nonsense out of the CFI rule. It is what Wikipedia calls a disambiguation page, except they don't do these for adjectives. Keep for these reasons. DonnanZ (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It’s still SOP, even if other terms that include it might not be: e.g. the existence of like a blue-arsed fly doesn’t mean that blue-arsed is not SOP. I also have no idea how it’s meant to be a disambiguation page either, because it isn’t disambiguating anything. It’s just a self-explanatory term that’s been used in the names of a few taxa. Textbook example of something that we should only have as a collocation. Theknightwho (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, but this more of a comment .... this is definitely unlike yellowthroat, which actually is the name of a bird, and can stand alone, unlike this adjective. But I hesistate to vote delete here because it makes me wonder if, by the same argument, duck-billed could also be dleeted, and I'd have at least mixed feelings about that. —Soap—14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least this is a reasoned comment. The real problem here is that certain users dislike hyphenated adjectives, without recognising they are quite often preferred. It is an inconvenience to look up yellow and throated. I discovered that yellowthroated has some use, including Merriam-Webster, which goes on to include yellow-throated species. As much as I dislike that form, I created an alt form entry for it, which is virtually a redirect. Hopefully that will pass COALMINE, which has its uses. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep. To me, as soon as you add an -ed to a "adjective + noun" phrase to make the whole thing an adjective, it becomes one unit, no matter how "transparent" its etymology might be. Are two-pronged, red-haired and the like all SoP? A clear etymology is not the same as an SoP. Also, (not sure whether this is pertinent or not, but) is throated ever used on its own? Is it SoP when we talk about words that behave more like suffixes? — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】10:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent in this case but it's worth noting that this is specifically covered at WT:CFI: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases. For example, wine-lover, green-haired, harsh-sounding and ex-teacher are all excluded as they mean no more than the sum of their parts, while green-fingered and good-looking are included as idiomatic." Of course, we might wonder why this apparently doesn't apply to two-pronged and red-haired (or for that matter something like ninth grader which happens to be unhyphenated at its main form). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Muqanna: Yes, I'm aware of that line in WT:CFI. I just see a degree of idiomaticity in yellow-throated in the way it's used in a taxonomic context that I don't see, for instance, in green-haired, mainly because it's used to describe more that its literal meaning. Taxonomy epithet are often not just descriptive and to some degree they don't even try to be precise. I think that's worth describing in a dictionary. Compare (1) a Yellow-throated Bulbul1) Yellow-throated Bulbul, with its yellow head, and (2) a Yellow-headed Blackbird2) Yellow-headed Blackbird with his yellow head, throat and chest. Or again, compare (3) a Yellow-bellied Marmot3) Yellow-bellied Marmot, with it's yellow throat and chest, and (4) a Yellow-throated Euphonia4) Yellow-throated Euphonia, with a yellow forhead and a yellow throat, chest and belly. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】12:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a separate argument from the claim that the affixation of -ed in and of itself is sufficient to make a term lexical, but I'm also not sure what non-SOP gloss you're putting forward for "yellow-throated": if the claim is that there isn't a general gloss independent of the specific species, then that seems more like an argument to not have an entry for "yellow-throated" at all and to handle it species by species. So not convinced on the whole. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Muqanna: It is indeed a separate argument. I'm just trying to understand myself why, linguistically, I feel that yellow-throated is different from, for instance, big-nosed, which to me is a clear SOP. I'd discard my previous argument, since it's obviously not a question of grammar. I think the definition on yellow-throated should clarify that this adjective is used to describe a variety of animal species with a yellow throat or underside, like we do for yellow-bellied, for example. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】12:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Muqanna: Or maybe I should just accept that those names are indeed SOPs, they're just used very loosely. Handling it species by species is probably the best thing to do. I change my vote to delete, then. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】12:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's useful to have all the species called 'yellow-throated' listed as links at a 'yellow-throated' page. Arguably each of these species, as well as the word 'yellow-throated' are SOP in any case but viewing it as one word rather than a phrase that's the sum of more than one word makes me think we should keep it. As for 'throated' on its own, that might depend on whether we allow PornHub and xHamster as durable sources! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sartma I see what you mean but looking at the pictures in the Wikipedia article it seems like the throat is always yellow but other parts of the animal may or may not be, oddly enough. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yellow-throated marten isn’t SoP, but it doesn’t mean that yellow-throated on its own is not SoP, especially when we already have throated defined as “having the specified kind of throat”. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In WT:CFI I can't find anything about the names of species, so they must have been accepted by default. They do make a nonsense of the specific ban on hyphenated compounds that hard-line users like to follow, but the ban often has to be ignored. We do have a loophole with WT:COALMINE for closed compounds, and yellowthroated exists. So if COALMINE is observed yellow-throated can be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if yellowthroated is attestable with at least three qualifying quotations. I note that the alleged Merriam-Webster reference is actually to a disambiguation page, not an entry, and the page says “the following 3 entries include the term yellowthroated”, then proceeds to give three hyphenated entries, yellow-throated marten, yellow-throated vireo, and yellow-throated warbler. So no actual use of the unhyphenated form from that reference. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a really rare form, with two of the quotations from South Africa, one from India, and none from largely English-speaking countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and United States, but let's see what other editors feel about those quotations. (Also, it would be better if you set them out as quotations rather than bare links at the end of the entry.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly rare. I will leave formatting as quotes for now, let's see if they are accepted by other users first. I first heard the distinctive South African English accent in Sydney years ago, from a married couple from South Africa also living there. DonnanZ (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgconlaw: They are all reputable edited academic references, the place of publication is neither here nor there. FWIW the author of the 1997 citation is Italian and, given their names, the authors of the 1999 piece are presumably native English-speakers. (I took the liberty of formatting the citations and adding in the specific quotes.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_(15107823404).jpg)
_male.jpg)
Done, I managed to scrape together three. DonnanZ (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
