Talk:dog doctor

RFV discussion: July 2022
Rfv-sense I did a preliminary search yesterday and had difficulty finding this sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Reverted the removal because the sense demonstrably exists. This might technically be &lit or SOP, but that's a separate question from attestability. (I don't think it's obvious from the individual parts that this sense would exist. If anything it's more surprising than the definition "veterinarian". But I also admit that it's not really a lexical term.) 98.170.164.88 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A dog who is also a doctor. Quality content. Can't find anything on GBooks, though. Theknightwho (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's one: (images confirm the interpretation). I'm also finding plenty of uses on Twitter (just a sample):, , . Is that enough to attest it? 98.170.164.88 18:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Amazing. I love it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Another usage in a book: . If you read the story, he's a dog who acts as a doctor for other dogs, so the interpretation could go either way, but I'd lean toward it being a special sense rather than plain old "veterinarian". 98.170.164.88 18:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From Google Books:, "In elderly living facilities, having a dog doctor or cat nurse making the rounds makes the residents happier and creates better interactions between them." The cover image is a dog with a stethoscope. 98.170.164.88 18:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is extremely silly but this sense is clearly SOP. I don't know however if that means it should be removed, as the "veterinarian" sense is less clearly SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that one has to be SOP, too, since it fits the endlessly productive pattern of nose doctor (doctor treating nose issues), throat doctor, eye doctor, etc. (And the other sense fits the endlessly productive pattern of Armenian doctor, Buddhist doctor, lazy doctor, etc.) Move to RFD since cites have been provided above? - -sche (discuss) 00:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think the fact that sense 1 translates to Hundearzt whereas sense 2 translates to Arzthund has any bearing on whether we want to retain the entry? WT:THUB doesn't say a whole lot about such multi-sense SOPs. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't, since those are also formed by summing parts in predictable ways; any other animal term could be plugged in in the same way (Pferd, etc) and in both English and German the medical element could also be changed from doctor to nurse, etc, although not all combinations would be common enough to be attestable. The predictable way English forms "doctor who treats animal X" happens to be the same as the predictable way it forms "doctor who is an animal X", whereas the predictable ways some languages form one vs the other differ, but I would consider the relevant factor to be that they're predictable and, in the case of English, SOP. I don't think having multiple senses stops something from being SOP; compare the RFD discussion of royal assassin, or, say, a green business leader (inexperienced, environmentalist, nauseous, envious...). - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Err, the "a dog who is a doctor" was Wonderfool being stupid. Let's move on Dunderdool (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cited. Please do not remove the sense as it clearly exists. While more than likely SOP, that is an issue for RFD, not here. AG202 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Cited. (1) Still waiting for cites. (2) If no cites, then the discussion is over. (3) If cites, then the SOP discussion can begin. (4) You all like to use the SOP method to delete words, but this method is equally valid with similar and equally authoritative results. The logic to this method is: (A) Is there a lingusitic phenomenon (this sense of this term)? then (B) Is it within the scope of Wiktionary? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cited. J3133 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had taken the cites provided here as cites, but didn’t realize that they were not added the page, so my bad on that one. However, SOP discussions do not belong here on this forum per the rules that govern RFV. RFV is meant to show that words and senses exist, not to decide whether or not they’re SOP. That belongs in RFD. I’m also not sure whom you’re referring to with “you all” as I’ve been ruling on the place that this discussion should take place, not the merits of deletion. CC: @Fytcha AG202 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is cited now and should not be removed. Please use rfd/rfd-sense if you think it should not be included. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! AG202 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This could probably be moved to RFD. Although it's an unusual combination of words, it's no less SOP than or . Binarystep (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed and immediately deleted the sense as SOP. I kept the citations if anyone cares. Dunderdool (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sense restored. Take it to RFD. You know this already. CC: @Fytcha again (apologies) AG202 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's gonna fail RFD, we all know this already. Fine, I'll add &lit Dunderdool (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–November 2022
See the RFV discussion; trivially SOP; compare "eye doctor", "foot doctor", "horse doctor'',, (and for the other sense, "dog who is a doctor": Armenian doctor, Buddhist doctor, lazy doctor, ...) - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We actually do have . (And even, although not in the intended sense. An &lit could probably be added.) 98.170.164.88 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Are we using our free time to the best advantage in basically playing Wonderfool games? Hmmm. Do what you want, told you so later. Equinox ◑ 13:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that this RFD is for both senses—the first one was added by, whom I have pinged. J3133 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether WT:TENNIS would apply here. Or maybe WT:COALMINE, since is attested:, , . 98.170.164.88 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep only per WT:COALMINE AG202 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Typos and scannos are not attestation. If the same page of the same book has both forms it might be an indicator that it is a mistake and not a brand new word. - TheDaveRoss  12:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WT:COALMINE and possibly WT:TENNIS. Binarystep (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for sure. I don't find it trivial at all that a vet specialising in dogs is called a "dog doctor"; I'd certainly never heard the term till I read it. The meaning of these terms may be obvious, but their existence is not predictable. "Dog doctor" and "horse doctor" were common terms in the 18th and 19th centuries; *cat doctor and *sheep doctor were not. Ƿidsiþ 07:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is prevalence an argument for idiomaticity? Maybe dog doctor and horse doctor were common terms because these were common specializations, while the others were not. The combination dog training is far more common than cat training; nevertheless, it is a completely transparent combination. --Lambiam 12:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "I'd never heard the term until I read it": please consider the lizard case. I doubt you have ever read the phrase "lizard doctor" in your life, but you would immediately (as an English speaker) realise that this was either a doctor for lizards, or a doctor who was a lizard, depending on parse. You would realise this even before you thought about it. So you think we should have that too. And camel doctor? Grasshopper doctor? Equinox ◑ 00:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If "cat doctor" wasn't (as you say) a popular term in the past, that was just because nobody gave a shit about cats. We love cats now but also we have changed our ideas of veterinarians such that we call them vets. I mean: does this strike no chord in your logical neurons. I tried. Equinox ◑ 00:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Equinox, you misunderstand my point about what a dictionary is for. The fact that a term's meaning is obvious is not one of our criteria for inclusion. Of course, I would guess what a "lizard doctor" is, but I would also think "Do people really say that??" Turns out the answer is no. But people really did talk about dog-doctors – a lot – as is clear from the literature. I agree, this has social implication for what we "give a shit about", but that is precisely one of the things that a language's changing vocabulary reflects. Ƿidsiþ 06:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Does exist? PUC – 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @PUC Created with citations. 98.170.164.88 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Widsith. Theknightwho (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete in both senses. In the vet sense, we could have a "lizard doctor"; hell, that works in both senses; oh wait, it's because there's no real idiomaticity. Thanks for wasting two minutes in which I could have been researching a boring mineral for this project. Suck my amethyst. Equinox ◑ 00:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note however that deleting goes against COALMINE, which was voted on and is therefore some sort of policy. See the quotations on dogdoctor. 98.170.164.88 01:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * lol "dogdoctor". Thank you. This is one of the cases where editor sanity should take precedence over typos, scannos, and other random substandard trash. But you're right! If we want to become dogs, the first step is to stop caring about quality, and eat shit. Equinox ◑ 01:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am skeptical of (one of the cites is the spaced version, the others are Twitter and likely typos (spaced version elsewhere in same text). The exceptions to CFI are to ensure that terms which are obviously worth including are not excluded on technicalities, not to ensure that every possible string of characters ever set to page(/screen) is recorded here. -  TheDaveRoss  12:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "one of the cites is the spaced version" - which? I looked at the original typesetting of all of them. The Smollett one is quoted by a secondary literary-criticism source, without a space, which implies this is the common reading: . The Time article uses both "dog doctor" and "Dogdoctor Smith" but I think the spelling of the latter is intentional, to make it into a one-word title, which should still count. I acknowledge that the Symonds one is the most likely to be a typo, as it uses "dog doctor" and "dogdoctor" interchangeably, but the sentence I cited still technically does not use the spaced version.
 * By the way, it could probably be kept on Twitter cites alone, given the way CFI votes have trended. (Also compare the recent entries created by WordyAndNerdy using only Twitter cites, whom I'm not criticizing BTW. Nobody has complained about those pages, but some probably would not be citable using only 'durably archived' sources.) 98.170.164.88 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Symonds quote actually has both, I had only seen the spaced version. Still, probably a typo. The Time one has both, regardless, it should not be kept. If Twitter cites are sufficient someone needs to get to creating about half-a-billion hashtag entries to ensure that Wiktionary will never be considered a useful reference by anyone. - TheDaveRoss  01:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Further comment. I think the addition of a second sense and some very SOPpy modern citations has disguised the validity of what was originally added, as defined at sense 1 and seen in the first two cites. It's clear to me from encountering this term in 18th–19th century literature that's a set term used for a recognised professional specialisation. It should pass if nothing else under WT:TENNIS, WT:LEMMING and possibly WT:COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Further comment. I think the addition of a second sense and some very SOPpy modern citations has disguised the validity of what was originally added, as defined at sense 1 and seen in the first two cites. It's clear to me from encountering this term in 18th–19th century literature that's a set term used for a recognised professional specialisation. It should pass if nothing else under WT:TENNIS, WT:LEMMING and possibly WT:COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 15:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-kept: no 2/3-consensus for deletion and no override found (WT:VP). As long as dogdoctor exists and was not challenged in its own RFD, the COALMINE policy applies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)