Talk:clarinet-player

RFV discussion: February–April 2016
I don't regard this as a workaround for clarinet player, and I'm remembering the sad fate of accordion player. Donnanz (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are challenging this as a sum of parts (in which case I agree, per Talk:accordion player) then I think it should be an RFD, not an RFV. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Forget about RFD for a moment, I'm challenging the use of hyphens in an effort to avoid deletion on SoP grounds. I'm sure the contributor thinks we're all thick. Donnanz (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is clarinetplayer attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's much more common without the hyphen, but about 3 of the first Google Book hits are for "clarinet-player". Renard Migrant (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bugle-player, cello-player, flute-player, guitar-player, harp-player, oboe-player, trombone-player, trumpet-player, and last but not least, accordion-player were all entered by the same contributor. What makes these allowable instead of unhyphenated entries, and why was accordion player deleted and replaced by accordion-player? The mind boggles. Donnanz (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RFV closed as out of scope: per, this is attested per WT:ATTEST, meaning there are qualifying quotations demonstrating existence of the form. I created WT:RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–September 2016
Someone seems to think this is a sum of parts.

As for myself, abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Either delete or move to clarinet player. Donnanz (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I won't rehash the argument because we've had it so many times. Equinox ◑ 14:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)