Talk:ex-Christian

RFD discussion: June 2019–April 2020
SoP - you can add ex- to literally anything. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also ex-Jew, ex-Muslim, ex-gay, ex-wife; need I go on? DonnanZ (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed deletion? Also, is it impolite to ask an ex-pirate for their ex-piration date? --Lambiam 09:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point Donnanz! They should be deleted too, IMO ;-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about "ex-statistician", "ex-organ grinder", "ex-mugwump"... ? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. At least the Muslim and Jew versions were created by a troll. - TheDaveRoss  13:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think anything "ex-whatever religion" can go; and possibly ex-gay; I have no plans to be gay just to find out what it's like to be ex-gay; but I would keep ex-wife and ex-husband - these have lemmings and are translation targets. Just imagine the question "How many do you have?" DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that ex-wife was in there, that should stay. Lemming alone would allow it, but I agree that it is a worthy translation target as well. - TheDaveRoss  20:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Same: I'd keep and  and delete the rest. Canonicalization (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We should keep those ex-es in which the prefix does not have the meaning of “former”: and ; ;  and ; ; ; ;  and ; ;  and ; and  and.
 * I’d also keep the adjectival sense of . --Lambiam 08:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would of course keep ex-wife/ex-husband and the terms mentioned by Lambiam where the prefix has another meaning. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with Lambiam’s views. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It gets worse: there is another entry,, which should be considered alongside - I have reservations about both. DonnanZ (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: in previous discussions like Talk:ex-stepfather (kept), Talk:ex-pilot (kept), Talk:ex-Scientologist (kept), some editors have argued hyphenated words are single words and thus un-SOP. I abstain on most ex- entries, though I obviously agree that ones where "ex-" has another meaning should be kept, and I also think ex-wife, ex-husband and ex-gay (maybe even ex-ex-gay) have enough possible merits (translation targets, idiomatically specific definitions, etc) that they should probably be kept pending their own individual discussions-on-the-merits. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to regard hyphenated "ex-", "pro-", "anti-" etc. as SoP. Equinox ◑ 18:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was forgetting the single-word view, which is an argument I tend to follow. DonnanZ (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that that view would lead to the inclusion-worthiness of, , , , , , , ..., many with several definitions (20 kinds of ex-Lions, 24 ex-Bulldogs, 27 ex-Tigers and 33 ex-Eagles). And that is just college sports teams. There are ex-CEO’s, ex-CFO’s, ex-CTO’s, ..., ex-mayors, ex-councillors, ex-eldermen, ..., ex-artists, ex-bakers, ex-chefs, ...; the list is virtually endless. --Lambiam 08:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And the list of -ness nouns is virtually endless. So what? That is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion per WT:CFI. I for one find it interesting that ex- is so productive in English, and am happy to find the evidence in the dictionary, in the proper category; ex- is not so hugely productive in Czech. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer to keep this as long as attested. The nomination does not refer to WT:CFI; it says "you can add ex- to literally anything", which is demonstrably wrong and its analogue "you can add -ness to virtually any adjective" has no force as for term exclusion, e.g. of wrongheadedness. The term is not a compound but rather a prefixed word. In Czech, the similar forms are exmanželka, exprezident, exšéf, etc., where there is no hyphen, so these are going to be kept anyway, and will contribute to WT:THUB argument for some entries, like for ex-wife; I have not found *exkřesťan in Google books, so no contribution from Czech to ex-Christian. I do admit that the use of the hyphen suggests sum of parts, but I feel this argument is less compelling for prefixed entries, and ex- is a prefix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all "ex-X" entries where the definition is nothing more than "a former X" or "formerly X" (excepting "translation hubs"). Mihia (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP; ex-Christian. Pppery (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, in English, you can add ex- to anything- the question is, has the English language done so yet? I would vote in the affirmative in this case. Adding ex- to anything is one of the ways English generates new words. I would call it neologism maybe?   --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stridently pro-hyphen I am in the pro-hyphen camp. I believe that written English used to have a lot more hyphens in it. Yeah, you can make words up on the spot with the "ex-" prefix, but if enough people make up the same word and it gets into popular usage, then a legitimate word can be born. Once established, the anti-hyphen people will start working on the removal of the hyphen- you can see some 'exchristian' examples out there. I, for one, still have an abiding faith in the majesty of the glorious hyphen. At first glance, you would probably consider 'sun-hat' as SOP, right? . . . But there is a form of this word without the hyphen- sunhat. Sun-hat used to have a hyphen in some contexts- see my edit on the sunhat page. So did to-morrow. Hyphens can be parts of words, yesterday, today and to-morrow. The word ex-Christian exists and is used in popular media outside of linguistically experimental or jocular contexts. That's my two-cents for ya. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll put it to you this way- deletion of this entry doesn't mean that the word doesn't exist in English, it just means Wiktionary won't be documenting it. If you have to delete it just because of anti-hyphen sentiment, that's up to you. But it's still a word, regardless of our dictates from on high. English doesn't have a politburo that decides what shall and what shall not be a word. I am pretty sure that this is a word exists. It's not something I came up with yesterday like "ex-ghost" or "ex-marble" or something silly like that. Deleting this entry would mean Wiktionary could never quite be on the cutting edge of what English is. I can't stop you, but I have seen 'ex-Christian' enough that it has passed my test to reach the threshold for being a word. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the policies of this website are against my position, then they are dead wrong in terms of the way English should be understood. But I don't think SOP is really against me- just a gang of well-meaning people with radical anti-hyphen bias.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What if the term in question was "former Christian", would that merit inclusion? Why is a hyphen magical when a space is not? means, so  is an identical term to , both mean that the parrot has ceased to be (a parrot). You would include the ex- version because it has a hyphen, but not the former version because it does not?
 * Hyphens can be used in many ways, and can form things which are clearly not atomic words (here is a reasonable-if-not-ideal example). Your position seems to be that spaces are the only form of word break which unambiguously delineate words, but that is clearly not the case. I don't think I have seen anyone advocate for removing all terms with hyphens in them, anyway. - TheDaveRoss  12:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't continue here with my autistic screeching, but I will give you a few links:    These are words, don't ignore them (IMO). I am not a scholar on the issue, I'm just telling you my feelings. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep all. The only difference as far as I can see linguistically is that certain affixes have hyphens (e.g. ex-) while others do not (e.g. un-), then there are others that sometimes take hyphens and sometimes not (e.g. semi-, non-). If we are going to not admit ex-Christian then we shouldn't admit unchristian, which essentially just means 'not Christian'. Words with "non-", "anti-", "un-", "semi", "half-" all seem equally SoPish. If they all meet CFI, then by the ethos of every word in every language, they should be in. One way English creates new words is to add "ex-" at the front, ex-Christian is just as much a word as ex-wife. The great thing about Wiktionary, as a dictionary, is that it does include trivial compounds/formations, more so than any other dictionary. It's a strength. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all. At the very least, we should be considering these on a case-by-case basis rather than wholesale. "Ex-Christian", "ex-gay" and the like have more subtle meanings beyond just "formerly ...". "Ex-gay", in particular, does not merely mean "formerly gay" because it's questionable whether that's possible. It's also part of the phrase ex-gay movement, which is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry. By the way, Chuck Entz, your examples are whataboutism. They are not relevant because they don't exist and we don't have entries for them. If we did, we'd recognise them as SoP and remove them. &mdash; Paul G (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, they were relevant, as a counter to Donnanz' typical "we should keep it because I like it"/inverse w:WP:I DON'T LIKE IT argumentation. As for whether they exist: ex-statistician 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-organ-grinder 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ex-mugwump 1, 2, 3. I'm pretty sure these would all pass an rfv (and yes, I did check before I chose those examples). As for rfd: how exactly would we recognize those as SOP? What objective criteria are there that would apply to those that wouldn't apply to the nominated ones? A notability requirement would filter out trivial examples such as mine- but we don't have a notability requirement. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all that are cited. Ƿidsiþ 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all not included by lemmings. DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Another factor that I just realized: ex- seems to act more like a clitic in many cases, modifying the whole phrase rather than the word it's attached to. There are examples like ex-Christian Scientist, ex-Christian Democrat and ex-Christian Brother (not to mention things like "ex-Baltimore mayor"). We don't include possessives in -'s and Latin forms in -cum or -que because of this characteristic. That doesn't automatically exclude this entry, but it needs to be considered. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One can check e.g. to look only at cases that do not clearly show the clitic phenomenon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete ex-Christian, ex-Muslim, ex-Jew and ex-Scientologist; keep ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend (these have lemmings and are likely jiffies for ex). Also keep ex-gay, although without any lemmings this should not be analysed as simply meaning "former gay", the current definition agrees with that. Delete ex-ex-gay. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and delete according to Lingo's list above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted some and kept others. - TheDaveRoss  19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Some counting: Keep all: weakly Dan Polansky, Geographyinitiative, Sonofcawdrey, Paul G, Ƿidsiþ; delete ex-Christian: Robbie SWE, TheDaveRoss, SGconlaw, Mihia, Pppery, DCDuring, weakly Chuck Entz, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Andrew Sheedy, weakly Lambiam. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Beer parlour
See Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)