Talk:respiratory disease

respiratory disease
"Disease of the respiratory tract." I'd initially speedy deleted this, but on reflection it doesn't meet the criteria. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Um, why would you consider this as a speedy? And why have you nominated it for deletion? If you are not willing to support your nomination I am going to remove the +tag. Reference #1 #2 Thanks WritersCramp 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't Wikipedia, it's not simply a question of "does it exist", but "is it dictionary material", specifically does it represent anything more than respiratory + disease. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you do not like a definition, then improve it, Wiktionary is a collaborative effort. If we apply your feeble argument it could be used to delete any of these definitions: Addison's disease, Alzheimer's disease Barlow's disease Behçet's disease Bright's disease Chagas' disease Cheadle's disease Christmas disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease Crohn's disease Graves' disease Hansen's disease Hodgkin's disease Kienbock's disease Lou Gehrig's disease Lyme disease Marie's disease Moeller's disease Möller-Barlow disease Paget's disease Parkinson's disease Raynaud's disease coeliac disease coronary artery disease coronary heart disease fifth disease food-borne disease foot-and-mouth disease green monkey disease mad cow disease motor neuron disease parrot disease. WritersCramp 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not true. "Alzheimer's disease" isn't any disease related to any person called Alzheimer. It is a specific one. But it seems that respiratory disease can be any disease of the respiratory system. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : Wikipedia defines it, too: Respiratory Disease is the term for diseases of the respiratory system. This definition makes clear that the adjective applies to the respiratory system more than to the disease. Lmaltier 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hunh? The meaning is a "disease" "having to do with breathing". DCDuring TALK 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be a perfectly normal use of both words. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sum of parts. ---&gt; Tooironic 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nominated as sum-of-parts (WT:CFI), for the uninitiated. One question is whether we keep recognized taxons in taxonomies, in this case a medical taxonomy; CFI admittedly says nothing of this. Another consideration is that direct translation does not work: there is no *"dýchací nemoc" in Czech but rather "nemoci dýchacích cest" and "onemocnění dýchacích cest" (translation targets, extra-CFI). So this term is "idiomatic" in the sense not used by CFI: it is peculiar to English as compared to Czech. Wikipedia's interwikis: ar:مرض تنفسي, eu:Arnas-gaixotasun, fr:Maladie respiratoire, hi:श्वसन तंत्र के रोग, ja:呼吸器疾患, pl:Choroby układu oddechowego, zh:呼吸系统疾病. Wikipedia's introduction: "Respiratory Disease is the term for diseases of the respiratory system. These include diseases of the lung, pleural cavity, bronchial tubes, trachea, upper respiratory tract and of the nerves and muscles of breathing." None of this speaks unambiguously for keeping, but I see no urge to delete this entry on the model of "white dog", because "white dog" is not a taxon in any way. --Dan Polansky 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment, looking at Special:PrefixIndex/respiratory this is arguably the most sum-of-parts of the lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not any "official" taxon. It seems just like "white dog" to me. The components have common near synonyms (pulmonary:; illness:, distress:) that often collocate. And the term fails the coordination test for a set phrase (eg, "cardiovascular and respiratory diseases" and "respiratory and cardiovascular diseases").
 * That other languages have other conventional systems for referring to diseases would seem to be a part of a Construction grammar approach, such as might have appendices for the number systems of each language or group of languages and for snowclones. We are beginning to explore such an approach through more systematic use of Appendices. Delete. DCDuring TALK 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Two keeps versus four deletes. I'd class this as a fail; may as well let the debate carry on for a week, if anyone wants to comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's been long enough. I agree with your assessment, especially as WritersCramp hasn't put forth any CFI-based arguments for keeping. Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)