Talk:pumpkin seed

RFD discussion: August 2019–February 2020
"An edible seed of a pumpkin or other cultivars of squash." So, +, allowing that pumpkins are cultivars rather than a single species. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK if the definition was changed to "The seed of a pumpkin eaten as a snack"? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * pumpkinseed exists so this can be kept. DTLHS (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view the fact that it is edible is not sufficient to make it non-SoP. Many types of seeds, or other plant parts, may be edible. We don't need to list all of them individually just to note this. If the seeds of plants that are not actually pumpkins are called "pumpkin seeds" then that would justify the entry, I guess, but I don't have a knowledge of this myself. Mihia (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As for WT:COALMINE, shows the solid form more common, which would disarm COALMINE, on the other hand, pumpkinseed may be predominantly used to refer to the fish, and checking, I find e.g. Merriam-Webster only having the fish sense. I would keep the entry if only to make it clear that this is the main form used to refer to pumpkin seed, provided that indeed is the case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep irrespective of WT:COALMINE. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz: What is the rationale for keeping? Is the rationale based on WT:CFI in any way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't quiz me, it should be kept anyway, WT:COALMINE is used as a "get out of gaol card". DonnanZ (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With the attitude above, I would be happy to strike the above vote as invalid; alas, there is no policy supporting such a strikeout. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't obliged to answer you at all. DonnanZ (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By my lights, you were obliged to provide a meaningful, CFI-related rationale or indicate a non-CFI related rationale. "Keep irrespective of X" with no rationale is something we should not be seeing in our RFD discussions, as far as I am concerned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, see The Dave Ross's 12:27 edit below. DonnanZ (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * dan has provided a great service to our deletion discussions by challenging our positions to make them stronger. if nothing else, his questions clarify the reasoning behind votes by examining parts of them for the record. i think most wiktionarians would agree that having both your view and a thoughtful challenge from dan is helpful and allowed. i think donnanz and i agree on this, the ability to have discussions like this introduces new points we wouldn't have seen otherwise. we should rigorously analyze each rfd discussion on a case-by-case basis and that includes offering a challenge and counter-response to every opinion. --Habst (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have to agree with DonnanZ on this one, that WT:COALMINE is a bit of a cop-out sometimes. It seems to me to be based on the fear of red links, or the mistaken policy that alternate word forms always have to link to something, or that they can't just link to the individual words making up the compound, or that hard redirects are a terrible thing, or the idea that different typographic forms (with or without spaces or hyphens) always require unique pages (instead of just combining them on one). Wiktionary can be a bit schizo in that it seems to want to be like a normal dictionary, but it also wants to include a lot of word forms and usages that a normal dictionary wouldn't bother with, so it doesn't really know to handle some situations like this where policy tends to break down. Ok, ranting done. -Mike (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, NISoP. - TheDaveRoss  12:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was a coalmine. Changing to keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* Mihia (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not every seed is part of the human diet. bd2412 T 23:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Edible" doesn't make it magic any more than "small", "round" or "glossy" would. Oh but COALMINE! I guess we should keep it then...? But I am curious about how common this single-word form is. It looks like an aberration to my eye. Imagine how silly "sunflowerseed" would look. Equinox ◑ 12:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Equinox: Seems rather common, actually too common for COALMINE: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion (4 keeps). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November–December 2023

 * See Talk:sunflower seed.