Talk:pirate ship

RFD discussion: August 2019–February 2020
SOP. 2600:1000:B12F:BA24:9DAB:B0CE:7492:B01F 18:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, translations do not seem to meet the requirements for this entry to be kept per WT:THUB. WT:COALMINE would seem to apply based on a cursory Google Books check for pirateship, but a check of ten promising-looking results yielded only scannos. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep based on WT:COALMINE with attested pirateship. for a word that is as widely used as this, i don't think checking only ten results is enough to vote delete. --Habst (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would keep this, if only for the translations poo-poohed by Mnemosientje. I think instead that should be scrutinised as it was just created by User:Habst, who IMO doesn't have a particularly good record. DonnanZ (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, WT:THUB still doesn't apply (and testing an RFDE according to that isn't poo-poohing so much as proper procedure according to our voted-upon policies), but Habst seems to have done a fine job here (why are you attacking their person instead of the citations they used to support their entry?) of demonstrating that WT:COALMINE does apply and that my cursory check was indeed too cursory. I am therefore changing my vote to keep. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Canonicalization (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the first quote, pirateship might be pirate + (the suffix) instead of pirate + ship.
 * In the second quote, the term is actually spelled pirate-ship (admittedly, the hyphen is due to a line break), not pirateship.
 * The third quote is arguably a typo, given that all other uses in that book are spelled pirate ship, in two words. (see this, and especially this)
 * Canonicalization, thank you, i have added three additional quotes to clear all doubt. --Habst (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is a certain legal concept, compare Art. 101–104, preceded by Artt. 15 seqq. . Fay Freak (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. No more valuable than, , , etc. - TheDaveRoss  12:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see and  as entries. It seems that there are two types of milk trucks - a kind of milk float and the big ones. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per lemming (Collins online has it), also somewhat swayed by COALMINE but I don't think the current cites are that convincing. Pirateship Down is clearly a play on Watership Down for instance. Note that Dutch roofschip and Afrikaans roofskip (literally "robbing ship" or "robbery ship") can support a translation target rationale, perhaps 賊船 (given as "thief" + "ship") can do so as well. I'd be surprised if there are no similar term in other languages. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a general principle, there is no reason to add multi-word terms that people can readily understand from the component parts (excluding set phrases and unusual collocations that use words in a somewhat unpredictable or not-readily-understandable way). "Coalmine" is nonsense, and if someone wrote "pirateship" as one word then we either say, well, figure it out that it's "pirate" + "ship", or grit our teeth and include "pirateship" because we can't legislate for single-word SoP terms. In any case, the question is whether "pirate ship" is readily understandable from "pirate" + "ship". Mihia (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry ... I mean "the question is" apart from this wretched "translation hub" thing, which I presently do not have a clear view about. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve the definition. Technically, any vessel used for piracy can be a pirate ship. However, if you ask the average person to describe a pirate ship, they will probably have an image in mind of a wooden sailing vessel flying a skull-and-crossbones flag. bd2412 T 23:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - have just edited the def (concatenating the 2 that were there, because they are not distinct senses). Also, has lots of translation targets that are single words in other languages. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)