Talk:hate sex

RFV discussion
Wikipedia article is in "request for deletion". SemperBlotto 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when is RFV a place to post cross-refs to a Wikipedia RFD? In any case, the discussion there is primarily over whether they can make something more than a dictionary definition out of it. The entry already has the three requisite cites, so RFV isn't the right place for it.  Maybe our own RFD would be appropriate, but unless we generalize an adjective sense out of this entry and hate crime:, I can't see this entry failing RFD either. — Carolina wren discussió  23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think it only has one of the three requisite cites: neither the New York cite nor the ESPN Page 2 cite is durably archived as far as I can tell. (And even if they are, I think RFV is a reasonable forum for determining that they are.) —Ruakh TALK 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a reason for RFV-ing, tho it would be nice to point out that one doesn't think the quotes are adequate when nominating. Still don't see what the Pedia RFD had to do with anything. I've added three cites found on b.g.c (one dating from 1972) and deleted the ESPN cite since dating it was problematic. That leaves the entry with five cites: three solidly durable, one mostly durable, and one possibly durable. Unless there's a question as to whether the cites are appropriate to the sense, that should do it. — Carolina wren discussió 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like hate (attr. n.) + sex. Any reason this shouldn't go to RfD as sum-of-parts? —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 03:05 z 
 * Because there are forms which are hyphenated? (according to the citations) --EncycloPetey 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. Is being a variant form of an entry a CFI?  Should it? —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 03:17 z 
 * If very carefully worded, I think it should be. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to making hate-sex: the primary entry and hate sex: the alternative form since the preponderance of cites favor the hyphenated version. Found one more cite and have exhausted b.g.c. — Carolina wren discussió 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we, should we, include sum-of-parts hyphenated terms? To me both forms seem equivalent.  Hyphenated hate-sex is more tentative, appears more in earlier quotations, and with self-conscious quotation marks.  If we keep these, I think the non-hyphenated form may be a better main entry. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 03:42 z 


 * Hmph, but what if hatesex were attested? Seems to be an argument for permissiveness in there somewhere. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 05:02 z 

RFV failed, entry moved to [[hate-sex]]. Citations moved to [[Citations:hate-sex]]. Feel free to bring to RFD. —Ruakh TALK 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)