Talk:arrière-arrière-arrière-arrière-petite-fille

arrière-arrière-petite-fille
French. SOP. I believe we should limit ourselves to one "great" for languages with such a prefix and to instead add a usage note. Vininn126 (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. SOP. You can stack as many as you want. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 13:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete. AG202 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We actually did have a discussion on this sort of thing, though I don't remember when or where. I believe the limit we arrived at is two repetitions, but I'm not positive. If it's two, then arrière-arrière-petite-fille would pass. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz If you can find that thread we can probably speedy this. Vininn126 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz @Vininn126 Per CFI, it looks like it’d be three? Though I’d also lean towards limiting it at 2 and then redirecting. Sourced section from CFI:
 * ”1. Each attested repetitive form that has no more than three repetitions shall have an entry.
 * 2. Each attested repetitive form that has more than three repetitions shall be hard-redirected to the entry having three repetitions. The three-repetition entry shall have a usage note indicating that additional instances of the letter or syllable may be added for the purely literary effect of indicating emphasis.”
 * See also: Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. AG202 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also favour limiting this to two. It gets a bit silly at 3. Theknightwho (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we all agree, we should go around and RFD any created with three. Vininn126 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How much did they giggle when adding an entry for arrière-arrière-arrière-arrière-petite-fille, I wonder. Nicodene (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I.e. delete, just to be clear. Nicodene (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think the 2014 vote was intended to apply to situations like this .... in these words, the repeated syllables are meaningful, since a great-granddaughter is not the same as a great-great-granddaughter. That said, maybe it makes sense to use the policy for the sake of convenience, and delete all kinship terms with more than three repetitions of the same morpheme. Then, we'll write an addendum in the CFI policy page clarifying that the rule really does cover non-reduplicative kinship terms like this.
 * That still wouldnt be sufficient to delete the bottom two words on the list above.  They could still be deleted as sum-of-parts, but would not automatically be deleted per CFI.  — Soap — 12:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RFD-deleted the first two, kept the last one. PUC – 14:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)