Talk:Tardislike

RFD discussion: February–November 2020
Arguably, this is a rare misspelling since it is not found in, and therefore, no frequency ratio can be determined for it. Delete accordingly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is that "like" can be used as a closed (i.e. no-space, no-hyphen) SoP constructor, which we presently do not or cannot legislate for, whereas we have rules for spaced and hyphenated SoP combinations so that we do not need to list a billion™ combinations that people can easily enough figure out for themselves. Mihia (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination rationale is not sum of parts (SOP) but rather rare misspelling. Let those who agree that this is a rare misspelling post delete; the policy is WT:CFI, "Rare misspellings should be excluded while common misspellings should be included". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the basis for considering this a misspelling rather than an alternative spelling (as it is currently labelled)? As Mihia says, using -like without a space is possible, and permissible in standard English as far as I know, as in ratlike, kittenlike, Frenchlike, or (to pluck a random example out of the air and show that citations of it can be found) pronounlike, even if a hyphenated spelling is often more common. Hence, I say keep on the grounds that it's not a misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The basis is the frequency ratio. Normally, I would use R:GNV to determine the frequency ratio but this spelling is so rare that it does not appear in R:GNV. This stands in contrast to, which finds both spellings, and . Still, your argument has some force: there is nothing mis- about the nominated spelling, very rare as it may be, and it fits a pattern as you have shown. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is probably not a misspelling. As you say, people can add "like" with no space or hyphen to almost anything, and it is hard to say that the result is misspelled. My point above really is whether we need to add "Xlike" entries for all of the potentially very large number of possibilities, or whether in some cases, such as perhaps "Tardislike", we should take the view that people can figure it out for themselves. It is straightforward SoP, except for identifying the boundary between parts. Mihia (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, Tardis-like should also be deleted as SoP. The "unexpectedly capacious" property is properly a property of Tardis, not of SoP derivatives. Mihia (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per others; not a misspelling. J3133 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see some citations and informed guesses (quantitative) of how often it is used. If it is rare, delete as a rare misspelling.  If it is common, keep as a standard use of  without a hyphen.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. How is this a misspelling? Because TARDIS isn't capitalized? Sure, according to Who canon, TARDIS is an acronym. But the uncapitalized forms are widely used and perfectly attestable. The unhyphenated form was also perfectly attestable -- with a bit of elbow grease. There's now four cites on Citations:Tardis-like. In fact, the unhyphenated form may be more common than it appears. Many Google Books and Issuu hits are spread across line breaks, making it impossible to determine whether they are genuinely hyphenated uses or unhyphenated uses split due to page formatting. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The OED only lists "Tardis-like" under the entry for "Tardis". SemperBlotto (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but redirect to TARDIS-like. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We don't do redirects like that. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. Keep but:

-- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kept as rewritten. bd2412 T 16:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)