Talk:ex-pilot

RFD discussion: August–November 2017
SoP? I'm not sure. If not, we have lots to add. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: single word beginning with a hyphenated suf prefix is not SOP. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I withdraw my request. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * re: "...single word beginning with a hyphenated suffix.." If you've got one, I'd certainly like to see it- it would be a real first! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Prefix. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those -ass-suffixes make me sick. Although technically -ass is not used as a suffix there. ;-) W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's one! :) —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Challenge accepted. "The absence of a -nesslike suffix does not prove that there was no theory" (1983, Hansen, Language and logic in ancient China, page 41). Equinox ◑ 16:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would delete these. The hyphen makes it obviously decomposable into parts. Same with hyphenated anti-. Equinox ◑ 10:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Following the rules I just made up the "ex-" prefix can apply to almost anything, so I would delete this. W3ird N3rd (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You could say the same thing about the "-less" suffix, which Equinox pretty clearly supports. People are being so deletionist lately. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't generally support it when the word has a hyphen (which is rare with -less). Equinox ◑ 23:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What are our suffix/prefix entries required to have? A hyphen. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. If an entire word (not just a *fix) has a hyphen, e.g. anti-hospital, it is trivial to work out the components, even for a NNES. But with no hyphen, it's harder: antique might be opposition to que (whatever that is). In the past when this argument came up, I found actual real examples where a word can be broken down two ways, one right and one wrong. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A que is apparently a barbeque. Many people are antique, mostly vegetarians though. Antique is included because it has another meaning though. Should you really include anything with anti- you can think of, like antiraisin? Which, as it turns out, is actually a thing. Seriously. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Calling me a deletionist.. You must be joking. :-) The discussion I linked is about SoP, a sum of parts. Without a space or hyphen, there are (the way Wiktionary sees it) no parts. In fact it turns out Wiktionary doesn't see parts even when there is a hyphen.
 * That being said, if somebody lost their towel and they would shout out "Oh noes, I'm towelless!" I don't think it would actually be a good idea to add towelless to Wiktionary. Even if they lost their boat and would shout "Oh noes, I'm boatless!", you could ask yourself if it's really a good idea to include every possible combination with -less even if they could just barely pass an RfV. Arguably such -less words could be included if they are widely used - far beyond the three-independent-durably-backed-up-sources rule. You wouldn't really want to lose hope. I mean hopeless. That would be careless. And pointless.


 * Oh good god.. boatless actually exists.. So does towelless, fishless, bikeless.. Well, might as well add presidentless, cardboardless, plasticless, icecreamless, tinfoilless, displayless, homepageless.. W3ird N3rd (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll remind myself later. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Unstriking: A discussion is developing based on the observation that the hyphen may well matter for WT:CFI, and its key term, "separate components". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar terms we have include ex-wife, ex-husband, ex-president, and more. I would tend to keep this because it is a prefixed word, not a compound, but that has, I admit, little bearing on separateness. As for lemmings, ex-wife is in Merriam-Webster and Collins. Having these entries starting with "ex-" help us show how far the prefix is productive in these hyphenated constructions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would possibly make sense to include these if their usage is vast, so well beyond the three citations rule. But I guess that's policy discussion. At least ex-wife should be included, even if it was only because ex can also mean ex-wife. W3ird N3rd (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have that as Etymology 3 of . I don't see how that's an argument for keeping, though I'm not in favor of deleting it either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Trying to accuse boatless of being SOP is not productive. It very clearly isn't. I feel that everything that is not SOP should be kept, i.e., ex-pilot, ex-priest, ex-violinist should all be kept in the situation that they meet CFI. What you guys aren't considering is that usefulness varies depending on the readers. Maybe someone would want to read the entry for ex-violinist, for whatever their reason, which is all the reason to provide that entry if it meets CFI. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really want to include "usefulness" as a criteria for CFI, then we have a shitload of entries to delete. :-) For example, backwards time machine. Okay so this is technically not SOP because it does not say a time machine that travels backwards in time, so one cannot DIRECTLY imply that a backwards time machine is one that travels backwards in time. More likely, semantically, it would refer to a time machine that is backwards physically, which is not the case. But most people really could deduce the meaning of backwards time machine anyway, even though it's not SOP. So should we have this entry? Yes, because it's idiomatic and not SOP. You never know; someone one day might not know what a backwards time machine is, and might want to look it up here. We want to provide as much resource as possible to readers, and every inch we take away from that goal is harming the project. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as single word, and any similar that meet RFV. Ƿidsiþ 06:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep - although one can add "ex-" to anything, in real language it only gets added usefully or meaningfully for a certain communicative context. I looked up "ex-paper" on Google Books - which presumably could exist with a number of different meanings (e.g. a defunct newspaper, an old exam paper), and didn't find any examples except for "ex-paper-hanger", "ex-paper-man", and the like. Like -less and -ness words, they are single words and if they meet attest criteria they should go in IMHO.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ex-student
WT:SOP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases.". Compare also the RFD-deleted ex-Beatle, ex-Muslim, ex-Jew, ex-ex-gay. --Fytcha (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  09:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all. - TheDaveRoss  15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete brittletheories (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete --Rishabhbhat (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Courtesy crosslink to other similar discussions: Talk:ex-chancellor, Talk:ex-stepfather, Talk:ex-alumna (Spanish). Compare also Talk:non-Japanese and discussions linked from there. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)