Talk:insignis-pine

RFD discussion: May–September 2019
Also insignis-pines. Entry is not necessary when it is just following normal English hyphenation rules. Could these cases be addressed via speedy delete? CFI doesn't actually exclude these from being created. -Mike (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (as creator). This is not a case of an attributive noun, but is a real (and evidently dated) spelling for the regular noun, which is worth documenting and by no means "normal English hyphenation rules". —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I still think it unnecessary. Just one more reason why I think hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms should always be combined on a single page. -Mike (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I think is itself dated (based on the obsolete genus name Pinus insignis), superseded by  and . DonnanZ (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This type of entry is all correct. It is even needed because for example if you use it in glosses it will be a redlink otherwise. Fay Freak (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)