Talk:periodic-table

RFD discussion: January–March 2019
I don't think this attributive form needs a distinct entry from. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have a rule for attributive forms solely distinguished by a hyphen? There appear to be loads of them, such as, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , limiting myself to the ones I found that start with an a. Many seem equally or more superfluous than . If we decide such forms deserve distinct entries, there are probably tens of thousands more, such as (as in limited-time offer) or  (as in open-access journal).  --Lambiam 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the above seem more attestable than others. For example, I can well imagine arm's-length being used attributively (for example, "an arm's-length transaction"), but can't see how likely it would be to use address-book or award-ceremony in the same way. I lean towards deleting them unless they qualify as adjectives. For what it's worth, when looking for quotations of I didn't come across a single attributive use. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons as "crazy-paving" above. All predictably created cases, such as when "an X that is of or related to Y Z" becomes "a Y-Z X", should be deleted. Mihia (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per utramque cavernam 13:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Didn't we have a general discussion about this? One issue is that these are rarely limited to being attributive forms, they're often also attested as mere alternative forms. My preference has been to keep as a soft-redirect ( of some kind), but at worst, I think it should be a hard redirect. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not keen on any solution that suggests that "periodic-table" is a normal or acceptable way of writing non-attributive "periodic table". Mihia (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: periodic table is included and so should its attributive form periodic-table. It is predictable but so is the plural tables from table. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to see an example of any other dictionary that feels it necessary to create separate entries for attributive forms such as "periodic-table". While of course we are not obliged to follow other dictionaries, the absence of such entries, if that is indeed the case, would be evidence, I suggest, of the utter unnecessariness of doing so. Mihia (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, yet again, "for reasons it would be obtuse to rehearse". Equinox ◑ 02:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted: fails 4–2. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)