Talk:-tuples

RfD discussion
For the same reason that -ers and -ists don't exist. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep To be honest, I see no reason why -ers and -ists shouldn't exist. It seems sensible to tell people how different suffixes form plurals (especially since some are irregular: -biosis > -bioses), and because it's a "Plural form of..." entry it doesn't introduce any additional work to keep and maintain this. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Smurrayinchester here. The plural of 20-tuple, etc. is pretty obvious, but not absurdly so, and that hasn't stopped us from listing plurals for English words in general even where they're pretty obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and create -er, -ers, -ist and -ists. Pur ple back pack 89  02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the part of speech supposed to be? It's not a suffix, because you don't add -tuples onto a word; you add -s onto a word that already ends in -tuple. But it's not a noun because it isn't an entire word. Delete! Equinox ◑ 16:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an &lit problem to me. bd2412 T 16:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah. There was some discussion on de.Wikt about what to do with compounded suffixes (e.g. -ieren, which is seen in some analyses as -ier(-) + -en). de:-ieren is currently a hard redirect to de:-ier. en.Wikt doesn't like to use redirects in circumstances like that, but something along the lines of or a soft redirect seems in order here ("plural of tuple" is potentially misleading, for the reasons Equinox gives), if this entry is kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 17:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)