Talk:public-school

RFD discussion: September 2021–April 2022
Does not meet criteria for inclusion: we don't keep entries for predictable English attributive forms. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As there is an entry for, I would keep this one. Is this what the criteria is trying to prevent? DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedily deleted the challenged sense as a self-evident hyphenated attributive form: see "Votes/2019-05/Excluding self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds". Similar entries can simply be tagged with for speedy deletion. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me saying so, that was quite silly, as the noun form of still exists. DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind. However, there was a whole vote about this which achieved consensus. And, frankly, just because a compound noun like, oh, comfort food exists, it doesn’t mean we need a separate entry indicating the attributive form comfort-food. The use of a hyphen in this way is just the usual way attributive forms of multiword compound nouns are formed. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't normally create hyphenated attributive forms, but there is a definite need to include single-word attributive forms where the word is not a recognised adjective, and move such wrongly treated "adjectives" to "attributive". I did abstain in that vote, by the way. DonnanZ (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The outcome has become policy for all editors, regardless of how they voted. If you wish to retain this definition, you have to present a reasoned argument: either that the hyphenated-compound rule does not apply in this case; or that there is something very special about this specific term that warrants our making an exception. --Lambiam 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rolled back. The vote does not apply, as we are not debating the entry. This is not "merely as an attributive form of the individual components" like periodic-table was. DAVilla 18:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * how is it not? The very definition is "attributive form of public school". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if it were the only definition, then the entry should be speedy deleted. The sense is the attributive form, but then entry is not merely the attributive form. DAVilla 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. We look like fools to define public-school as a rare noun, but not list the correct adjective usage. DAVilla 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * we have had a whole discussion on this which has consensus. I'm afraid we have to adhere to that until the consensus changes. There is no particular reason to retain self-evident hyphenated attributive forms; hyphenating the nouns from which they are derived is simply the usual way of creating these attributive forms. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to delete, per your reasoning, then the entry will be deleted. But you are misinterpreting where consensus lies. The vote cited concerned entries, not senses. This RFD needs to take its course. DAVilla 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * that is splitting hairs. It makes no sense whatsoever to interpret the policy as stating that if an entire entry consists of a self-evident hyphenated attributive form it is to be deleted, but if it is just one sense it gets to live. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is splitting hairs, but the vote explicitly says "entries". And it does make sense to include a definition line when there's an entry, and not include the entry with just the one definition, despite your opinion. We have &lit definitions for the same reason. If the entry is there, then we tell people how it's used. But there are no &lit only entries.
 * I'm not saying that my opinion on the matter supersedes yours, or that this won't ultimately be deleted. I'm just saying we need to be sure before we do. DAVilla 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as an &lit adjective, per DAVilla. The implication that the only sense with which the reader will find this word is as a noun is indeed rather odd. bd2412 T 04:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as I disagree the previous vote should be interpreted in that way. If we have decided not to have self-evident hyphenated attributive forms, then this applies across the board and not only in free-standing entries. Having exceptions in an entry which has other senses (such as an alternative form for a noun) is confusing to readers as they may wonder why such attributive forms are indicated, and may then prompt them to create other such attributive forms contrary to the policy. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like no consensus, so kept. This situation isn't clear in the voted on policy, it seems akin to the &lit sense in entries which would not be allowed if the entry didn't exist for other reasons. - TheDaveRoss  13:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You deleted the attributive sense but it was kept per the RFD. J3133 (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)