Talk:chilled speech

Created entry for chilled speech
Created entry for chilled speech, with section for both Noun and Verb. With three citations for each, all citations to Usenet newsgroups. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October–November 2018
SOP: chill (verb sense #8) + speech. I can find similar phrases like "chilled free speech", "chilled speakers", and "chilled public disclosure". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, see similar at chilling effect. said this was appropriate and etymologically related. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided a link, so I don't know what Ruakh said, but I don't see how this is anything but SOP. How does it differ from many similar phrases like "chilled speakers" or "chilled free speech" or "chilled the coverage"? The phrase "chilling effect" is a little different because if you don't know the phrase, it's not clear which sense of "chill" it uses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it refers to Ruakh‘s response here. But whether a collocation is etymologically linked to another collocation is not relevant to questions on its worthiness for inclusion. As to that, the term “chilled words” may mean “icy words” (sense 3 of ) ; how is the reader to know that chilled speech is not speech composed of such chilled words?


 * Apparently the phrase "chilled speech" can be used that way too: Torn within, he presented an impassive face to his interlocutress. His voice seemed to Cicely colder. ... The snow, the grey-white landscape, the approaching shades of evening, chilled speech. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This entry has two forms, noun and verb. The question we should ask ourselves is, would our readers be better served with this page deleted, or kept? -- Cirt (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think everyone will be better off if the verb form is deleted. We also have no verb form for, nor should we, even though you can find examples of “use“, like this one, “And an estate tax may apply to property that is not in the decedent's estate, where he reserved powers or benefits in an inter vivos gift.” --Lambiam 07:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Our readers are better served with the entry kept. I don't see any overriding reason why not to keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't- which is why you keep creating this kind of useless crap. Basically, it's an important concept, but so is [being nice to other people, even if you're having a bad day] . It's not the kind of thing people are going to look up: I don't think I've heard anyone actually say this- ever. The main problem is that it duplicates the definitions at chill, so if anyone makes any changes there or here, the two entries are going to be out of sync. There's also the "well, duh!" factor. Having entries with no real content independent of the meaning of their parts makes readers ask "why did you make me waste my time reading this?" You might as well create a page of 17 randomly selected phrases that contain both "the" and "of". It's meaningless filler, and annoying. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: chilled speech is not a SOP. It is not a "sum of parts". No one is saying that it means to freeze or cool down speech. It means something different than chill and speech mean separately. It should therefore be kept. -- Cirt (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's chill verb sense 8, as mentioned at start of this thread. We don't for instance have an entry for "extraterrestrial race" on the grounds that it isn't a sprinting competition. Equinox ◑ 14:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: chilled speech -- It's a specific legal term in the law. It would benefit our readers to have a page to learn more about this, and have more citations specific to this particular meaning. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Please keep the discussion and citation pages for further research in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cirt, it is a non-idiomatic sum of parts, even if those parts may not be the first definition line on their respective pages. Incidentally, we do not keep terms just because they are legal terms, but it can sometimes be a clue for idiomaticity, and in this case, I note that this term seems to be absent from Black's Law Dictionary, which is the gold standard for legal lexicography in the US. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 15:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Late comment. I think the meaning of noun phrase "chilled speech" (and other similar compounds with this "chilled") is potentially difficult for people to understand from the parts. I think it would be helpful to at least add another sense at chilled (which currently has only one meaning, "cooled"), and this could then conveniently include a usage example involving "chilled speech". Mihia (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)