Talk:rate of climb

rate of climb

 * SoP ? -- A LGRIF  talk 12:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical term, set phrase. —Stephen 14:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What about [[rate of climb indicator]]?—msh210 ℠  18:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Stephen. Has very specific denotation, seeming to meet the fried egg prior knowledge test. -- Visviva 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make that it is a technical term? Because the set phrase test has not been operationalised, it seems to amount to the opinions of admins, more or less a Vote.
 * How many phrases don't meet some reading of the fried-egg test? That test is so undemanding that we could probably dispense with any other test of idiomaticity. Perhaps the test should be either one- or two-sided polysemy: If one word in a two-word collocation qualifies the other and one/two are polysemic in some context then the collocation is eligible for inclusion in all senses that are attestable.
 * In a sports context and in an aviation context this has different and obvious SoP meanings. I'll bet it has further meanings in geriatrics and in animal behavior, which would be equally obvious in context. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the sports meaning? I don't see it in a check of Google News, which is generally a gold-mine for such terms.  The archives do have a handful of hits used in reference to numbers ("the rate of climb in Boeing's stock price", wow that takes me back), but these can readily be understood as metaphorical references to the aviation term.  Regarding technical terms, the fact that it is part of the standard aviation lexicon is both an important fact about usage -- a fact which is a) verifiable and b) cannot be deduced from the sum of parts -- and a very important consideration for translators: any language will have multiple ways of referring to the speed at which something rises, but only one term will be correct for "rate of climb".  It is this last which is most important to Stephen, I think, as his approach to Wiktionary emphasizes its role as a translation resource.  I normally part ways with Stephen on this, but in the case of a term that is as seemingly fixed and important as this one, it is a worthwhile consideration IMO.-- Visviva 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept of rate of climb comes up a lot in flying manuals, accident reports, etc. So? If this were so clearly of lexicographic interest, then one would expect some dictionary or glossary in OneLook to include it. Well, exactly two do so: Wikipedia and Wiktionary. (Perhaps we should automatically include any Wikipedia article title.)


 * Meta: It is only too clear that different Wiktionarians come to widely varying views as to which terms are idiomatic or otherwise worthwhile. I would venture that your judgment is no more or less arbitrary than any of ours; whatever conclusions we as individuals reach will be wrong some percentage of the time.  If the reasonable doubt criterion seems too lax -- and it will certainly let some sinning words go free -- what do you propose in its place?   If we do not err on the side of inclusion, should we then err on the side of deletion, smiting every entry that cannot immediately and positively prove its worth to the project?  Would that not in fact hinder our already-glacially-slow progress toward building a complete dictionary of all languages?  -- Visviva 12:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very inclusionist on individual words. Multiword headwords are my concern. I look for readily comprehensible rules that are less based on judgment. Else we descend into votes on many entries. If translatability is a criterion, let it be voted and documented. If polysemy of component words is a criterion, let it be voted. If the fried-egg test is central to inclusion, let the test be documented and the limits of its application found. Common law needs to be made comprehensible by simpler statute from time to time to let the younger folks be judges and attorneys. Where are the solons who are willing to face this? DCDuring TALK 12:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is a set term within the aviation industry, and is the only term used for this meaning. This is one of the attributes that aircraft are compared against each other, and is used as part of the term "rate of climb indicator".  --Dmol 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is a term specific to an industry or profession, then it should be kept. (I withdraw my SoP request). I believe we have already debated to a conclusion the issue of professional terminology. The problem is that this decision is not reflected in CFI (yet). -- A LGRIF  talk 14:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, being a technical term is something that ought to be verifiable, but the evidence is mixed. The one English-English dictionary of aviation that is available for preview on Amazon doesn't have an entry; neither do any of the online glossaries I checked.  Interestingly, said dictionary does have an entry for "rate-of-climb indicator" and also for "rate of yaw".  This is puzzling, as I'm not sure how "rate of yaw" would be any less SOP (to an aviation specialist) than "rate of climb"... On the other hand, the Elsevier English-Russian Dictionary of Civil Aviation does include "rate of climb", along with the importantly non-synonymous term rate climb.  So this would seem to fall into the large category of technical terminology that is mostly useful for translation purposes.   We have yet to entirely straighten out our approach to such terms, but their inclusion in printed bilingual dictionaries is prima facie evidence of inclusionworthiness. See also our online competitors: LEO, Naver et al. -- Visviva 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, set phrase for the industry. DAVilla 12:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept per consensus. --Jackofclubs 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)