Talk:by law

by law
Sum‐of‐parts by the eleventh definition of by. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * shows lots of dictionary coverage of by-law and shows no dictionary provides justification for WT:COALMINE-based inclusion.
 * But since our inclusion-criteria-in-practice seem to be that we include whatever English terms that a few non-native speakers of English among our regular contributors find unintuitive, my delete will probably be overridden. DCDuring TALK 13:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't blame us non-natives summarily. I believe I'm more "deletionist" than you. Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. But is it possible that it is sometimes used as a spelling of by-law? --WikiTiki89 20:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Conceivably, but it would still seem like an uncommon misspelling to me. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Hekaheka: I don't blame anyone. But it doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just think that what I would call a "translationist bias" leads to inclusion of many terms that are at best marginally idiomatic and at worst an elementary confusion of words with concepts. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We should also look at by rights. bd2412 T 23:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)