Talk:intensive-care

RFD discussion: May 2019–January 2020
Delete another unnecessary hyphenated attributive form. (For a separate issue with this entry, see Grease_pit/2019/May.) Mihia (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chignon – Пучок 22:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there is much harm done including these forms, in this case to illustrate that shouldn't have a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the fact that we list intensive care without a hyphen enough to illustrate that it should not have a hyphen? Mihia (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete on what grounds? It's no more SOP than intensive care. You say it's "unnecessary", but fail to explain why, Mihia. Pending satisfactory explanation, I'll say keep. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hyphenated compound modifiers can be created in arbitrary and virtually limitless combinations, and their construction is obvious and transparent once the simple underlying principle is understood. I do not see any need to create potentially vast numbers of individual entries defining "X-Y" as "attributive form of X Y", while including only selected examples gives the false impression that there is something special about the ones we do include. Mihia (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To reply to your points one at a time:
 * Hyphenated compound modifiers can be created in combinations neither arbitrary nor limitless but only when attested.
 * Their construction (given the version with the space in it) is obvious, as you say; but we're not writing a dictionary for those who write dictionaries: we're writing a dictionary for those who look up words, as the "general rule" of CFI makes clear ("A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means"). That's not construction. And it's likely someone will run across intensive-care and want to know what it means, no less than intensive care. (Arguably, more than intensive care, which has a greater chance than intensive-care does of being mistakenly looked up under its components.)
 * That only some examples are included and people may think they're special is not an argument for deletion of those. First of all, people won't think they're special, as users of the dictionary (as opposed to its editors) won't know how many such terms we have. Second, that argument can be applied to all sorts of categories but is not (e.g., we don't delete our one Wawa word just because people will think it's special).
 * This is a definite keep. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Can be created in arbitrary and virtually limitless combinations" was clearly meant to refer to general English language, not to what can be created on Wiktionary. And it's true. I would delete these. As said before, it's like the normal language rule where you capitalise the first word in a sentence: you hyphenate an NP to make it an adjective. Equinox ◑ 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would keep it - and any others that meet CfI. We are not short of space. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ahh, if I were king, Wiktionary would put the entries for the hyphenated form onto the same page as the non-hyphenated form to keep things simple and not break up word entries so unnecessarily. Doing so wouldn't affect the search because, as an example, typing "fruit-tree" in the search box causes "fruit tree" to appear in the drop-down, and searching for "fruit-tree" yields results with "fruit tree" listed first. But I'm not king. -Mike (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would delete all attributive form entries which are merely compounds connected by hyphens, they are a transparent construction. There is no more reason to have these than to have entries such as, . That said, it should probably be done via vote. - TheDaveRoss  19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have created a vote here. Mihia (talk)


 * Keep since intensive care is inclusion worthy. More at Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds, which is scheduled to end on 22 June 2019. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am retracting my keep since Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds has passed, and this should be deleted as a consequence, whether I like it or not, I guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleted per the vote (whether I like it or not, as Dan says). - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)