Talk:smell-o-

RFD discussion: English prefix
Not a prefix. was formed by analogy with (cf. ),  =  +  + undefined: (from ), and  is just undefined: + undefined: +. The undefined: in undefined: could be substituted with virtually any concrete noun or noun-seeming word. ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr  〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ  〰  04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Yair rand 04:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Somewhat productive as a neologism generator (smell-o-phone, smell-o-rama, smell-o-mints, smell-o-travel, smell-o-solution, smell-o-meter). We aren't let our personal taste get the better of our responsibilities, are we? Shouldn't this be moved to smello-? (cf. [sic] smellovision, smellogram, smellograph, smellology, smellophone, smellorama, smellometer). DCDuring TALK 12:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that gets only one real hit, ditto, whereas  and  both get zero. Sixty-six are yielded for , but  is hot on its tail with sixty-four, and whilst  gets a respectable thirty-three hits,  gets seventy-nine. Do you propose that we create *undefined: and *undefined:, too? This is nothing about personal taste; *undefined: just isn't a prefix. These coinages are all just undefined: + undefined: + undefined:. ∿’d: Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the title is wrong. This isn't a prefix. At the very least, move and delete the redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not a prefix and not entryworthy. Smello-, maybe; this, no. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's -o-:. Delete. Equinox ◑ 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, *undefined: shouldn't exist either; that would still be just undefined: + undefined:, with or without the hyphen. We have ; should we therefore have *undefined:?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ ⓤ · ⓣ  · ⓒ ~ 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RFD-failed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)