Talk:paper book

RFD discussion: March–July 2018
SOP. And the vote to allow retronyms has neither passed, nor is it likely to pass. --WikiTiki89 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain for now. I am sure Semper is up to something, and I respect him for that. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Semper is certainly up to something, and that something is creating a SOP entry that nobody would think to look up. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as bad-faith politics. I don't care whether this entry should exist or not. Creating it in response to an ongoing vote is fucking tacky. SB I thought better of you. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't find this SOP. And I don't agree that no would would ever look it up. Quite the contrary.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I personally call them printed books.  "Paper book" just seems so ridiculously redundant.  And there is such a thing as e-paper also.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete . ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are now two additional senses, so I think this is sufficiently distinctive. There is also at least one occurrence of "book in newspaper format" on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify: per Metaknowledge below, delete the second sense only. Use seems acceptable, but I oppose having a full-fledged definition: "well, since we'll have an entry anyway, we might as well keep that sense" . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * shows Merriam-Webster has two legal definitions; these are not what we have now, that is, a book like it used to be before electronic books. Legal definitions are also in A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.. If someone adds more definitions, we could unambiguously keep the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the entry since there is now a second definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, especially per Dan. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The disputed sense has three citations. How many more do you want? Keep SemperBlotto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is RFD, not RFV. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that there is another definition, I have made it into an rfd-sense (when the RFD was started, there was only the one sense in the entry). The existence of the entry as a whole and the sense in question in particular are independent, so I would not consider 's vote to be countable here unless he clarifies his position on the sense in question. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the sense of "A traditional hardback or softback book, as opposed to an e-book" as well. What could be done is replace it with &lit, but I am no fan of that template, finding it user unfriendly. Elsewhere, Andrew Sheedy writes '"Paper book," if e-books, etc. didn't exist, might be taken to mean a paperback book, or a book made entirely of paper. As with many retronyms, the term would likely have been confusing had it been introduced before other types of books were introduced.' In M-W, there is entry "paperbook" defined as paperback, which reinforces Andrew's idea that "paper book" might otherwise be understood to refer to paperback. A next move in the game would be for someone to attest paperbook, and see whether coalmine could apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep John Cross (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)