Talk:non-French

non-English (sense 1 only)
SoP. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What would you prefer? nonFrench or nonfrench, nonCanadian or noncanadian, nonEnglish or nonenglish? I wouldn't, we already have the correct ones. Keep all. DonnanZ (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky one. It's obvious what they mean, but I would say that these are lexicalised. Another one that comes to mind is non-lawyer, which is frequently used in the legal world and is arguably worth keeping specifically because it doesn't have a technical meaning, as so many other legal terms do. Theknightwho (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The big problem with this dictionary is that American spellings like nonlawyer are accepted without question, and British spellings like non-lawyer are definitely in the minority, perhaps because of a misconception amongst certain editors over the SoP issue. DonnanZ (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a big part of the difficulty is that what we think of as a word and how our brains perceive words are often very different. Even where that's a well-established fact, we're always going to put terms with spaces (and to a lesser extent hyphens) in under a lot more scrutiny.
 * Although it's easy to imagine that allowing terms with "non" in could get out of hand, fundamentally there need to be attested uses, and just as with many other Latin prefixes it's not always the case that "non-X" is just "not X" as there may be specific connotations. See non-judgemental (it's not really relevant that unhyphenated forms exist). Even aside from that, a specific confirmation that it really is just "non-" + X is (in certain circumstances) better than having no entry at all. Theknightwho (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep all. These occur in unhyphenated forms (e.g. nonCanadian), but the hyphenated forms are also widely-used. I'd even go so far as to say that the hyphenated forms are prevalent. This would leave us in the position of having entries for non-standard/rarer forms of words but not the more common forms. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WordyAndNerdy and the WT:COALMINE test. AG202 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons that, as Dirk Gently said, "it would be obtuse to rehearse". If you missed the argument at the time I won't repeat it for you now. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Does it really occur without hyphens? OCR-errors etc. don't count. Compare: this and this. --Astova (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Astova Yes, I'm pretty sure that the link that WordyAndNerdy provided has some examples. AG202 (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Hyphenated sums of parts.  Non-hyphenated versions are rare misspellings. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vox Sciurorum @Svartava Is it that rare though? I was surprised myself, but look at the link that WordyAndNerdy sent. I wouldn't think that all of those publications are misspellings, and I'd go as far as to say that the entry for nonCanadian should be reinstated because of it. AG202 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @AG202: Even if the closed form would itself be attested, I would prefer non-Canadian the hyphenated form deleted as it is quite obvious from its parts and endless such non-X combinations are possible. The creator himself has voted to delete this. —Svārtava  (t/u) • 14:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete —Fish bowl (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Vox; I really think that the coalmine rule has little to no relevance in many cases: Beer parlour/2022/March. —Svārtava  (t/u) • 06:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking at non-work-related, but there's no entry for work-related. and nonwork-related would look rather strange. DonnanZ (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted 5–3. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  16:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Beer parlour
See. Dan Polansky (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Link to other similar discussion: Talk:non-Japanese. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoration via THUB
I restored the entry as protected via WT:THUB. THUB was not mentioned in the deletion discussion so this is a new fact having bearing on inclusion. The dimissiveness of RFD participant Svartva toward voted-on COALMINE, even confirmed by another vote attempting to overturn it, is concerning: he invokes his preference over policy. The closure below the 2/3 threshold is concerning as well. If the closure were based on the strength of the argument in relation to policy, the vote dismissing COALMINE would have to be discounted, and in fact, all the delete votes after COALMINE was mentioned that do not deal with COALMINE in any way could be discounted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)