Talk:geographical-area

RFD discussion: May 2018–February 2019

 * Moved from RFD/non-English.

crappy adj form entry. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * this should be at WT:RFDE, methinks — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, per . Per utramque cavernam 17:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep; this is the same kind of discussion as Talk:transitive-verb, which contains Talk:transitive-verb. In the latter, -sche argues for keeping, and I say this: "We have the practice of treating the hyphen as significant for the choice of the lemma: we have apple-tree (noun, not attributive form) and apple tree as separate entries. Therefore, transitive-verb is a lemma different from transitive verb. It is predictable, sure, but so are many trivial derivations such as -ness derivations." Let me note that geographical area is not deleted as sum of parts. If geographical area were sum of parts, I would be okay with considering geographical-area to be sum of parts, like green-leaf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am rather dubious about this, and am leaning towards delete, unless quotations can be found. PUC has now gone and RFDed geographical area (which I would rather keep), sometimes you can't even mention a term for fear of an RFD. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is useless. It is silly to type such a thing into a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)