Talk:煙突掃除夫

RFD discussion: July 2017–April 2020
Sum of parts. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as useful compound. Um ... translation target, anyone? Mihia (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. : The "translation target" reasoning is explicitly only for English entries, because we don't place translation tables in entries in other languages (therefore they are incapable of being translation targets). This translation can remain in the table at chimney sweep, but with each of the two component words linked individually. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The "translation target" thing was just my little joke. Sorry if that was unclear. By the way, is the sugested SOP 煙突 + 掃除 + 夫 or 煙突 + 掃除夫? I find it a bit surprising that we have 煙突掃除夫 but not 掃除夫. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 掃除夫 is also SoP and [doesn't appear in http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E6%8E%83%E9%99%A4%E5%A4%AB any of the wordlists Weblio Dictionaries] relies on. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If 掃除夫 doesn't exist then that is a slight point in favour of keeping 煙突掃除夫. As a general principle, I do not believe that Ja entries should necessarily be deleted just because the meaning can be interpreted as the sum of the meanings of individual characters. I believe that well-established compounds that are perceived as one word should be kept, just as we keep "caveman" for instance, even though it is "cave" + "man". Even 煙突 and 掃除 themselves are ultimately SoP, but I don't imagine anyone proposes deleting those. OTOH the issue of "perceived as one word" is harder when there are no spaces, and, I would say, ideally needs a native speaker's input for individual cases, unless we are just to copy what other dictionaries do (I see, by the way, that WWWJDIC has 煙突掃除夫). Mihia (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wyang (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Japanese entered as chimney sweep; the sum is 煙突 (entotsu, “chimney, smokestack”) +‎ 掃除夫 (sōjifu, “cleaner”). If this is the most usual way to refer to chimney sweeps, I think this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. HeliosX (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. I changed the translation to link to the words individually and removed the term from under the "Derived terms" sections for both and, but perhaps it could be converted into an usex for either. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 12:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)