Talk:smoothrunning

RFD discussion: October 2021–July 2022
Tagged but not listed. I propose moving to RFV. DAVilla 19:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If, for argument's sake, it survived RFV, would that not mean passes WT:COALMINE? DonnanZ (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that hypothetical case, probably yes. DAVilla 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a rare misspelling whether or not there are three uses. Separate from that, I think the "coal mine" rule should be repealed.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do too, but see this... PUC – 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s a coalminefield. --Lambiam 11:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:COALMINE is common sense. We include attested words, and we include attested alternative spellings of attested words. Why would we exclude a common alternative spelling merely because the alteration was a space? bd2412 T 18:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only common sense if you operate on the assumption that every attested meaningful string of characters spelled solidly (i.e. a "word") automatically deserves an entry; in that case, it indeed doesn't really make sense to exclude non-solid spellings that are vastly more common. But I don't adhere to this principle that every "word" deserves an entry (because I think solidly spelled "words" can also be SOP), and consequently I see COALMINE as a devious rule that allows inclusionists to keep what I consider unnecessary cruft that shouldn't be here. PUC – 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary's mission statement is "to describe all words of all languages". The definition of "word" clearly and squarely includes attested meaningful string of letters spelled solidly (though of course we exclude many attested meaningful strings of characters, such as large numbers). Editors should either be here to fulfill our stated mission, or get out of the way of those who are doing the work. bd2412 T 22:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think I'm doing on this website, exactly? Just busybodying and getting in the way of "those who are doing the work"? How preposterous. I may have offended you last week with my comment on gaslighting, but yours sounds even more insulting - good job.
 * Every time one tries to push back against proposals and policies that one sees as robotic and that allow (or would allow) its partisans to forgo any kind of rational discussion - one doing so to try to avoid turning the dictionary into a mindless repository of strings or a rehash of what's been done before - one gets accused of lacking "common sense", of "getting in the way", of being a "destroyer" (not your words, but I've heard it from people from your camp), or gets nothing more for an answer than a peremptory "all words of all languages" (which admittedly is a good slogan but should not be taken to the letter and should be refined a bit if we don't want to turn the dictionary into a caricature). That's exhausting. PUC – 00:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "This" is absurd; just because at one point in time, we were forced to use French type, doesn't mean that we should submit to þat imposition in þe modern world where þ is nigh universally in fonts. And I will bring þis up in every single discussion.
 * Or I could be a reasonable human being and accept that Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English is for discussing deletions for English entries under Wiktionary's current rules, and that discussions about changing those rules should be at Beer parlour and other pages, and even then, bringing up the same issue over and over that general consensus has already decided on can be disruptive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please reread the discussion. I did not bring up the topic of coalmine here, Vox Sciurorum did. They were apparently unaware that there has been a recent vote on the topic, so I pointed it out to them. I admit I could have abstained from voicing my opinion about the policy for an umpteenth time while doing so; but I did it very briefly ("I do too [think it should be repealed]") and had no intention of relitigating the whole issue here. Then bd2412 stepped in to campaign in favour of coalmine, presenting it as "common sense" (does that imply that people like me who oppose it lack common sense?), so I felt justified in pushing back against that idea and exposing my point of view.
 * Let me also note that nobody here, neither Vox Sciurorum nor me, has been trying to short-circuit the process (not this time, at least), contrary to what bd2412 claims below: Vox Sciurorum wrote his remark about coalmine as a parenthesis (" Separate from that , I think the "coal mine" rule should be repealed" - emphasis mine), while I haven't even voted in this RFD. PUC – 09:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for implying that you are not doing the hard work on this project. Clearly you are a good and productive editor. At the same time, however, I do not think that the inclusion of the contested attested terms that we have been discussing (heat-resistent, nature lover, smooth-running) threaten to reduce the dictionary to a caricature. bd2412 T 17:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I've become too touchy on the subject anyway. I guess it's only fair that I get a little flak: RFD's being the most frustrating part of Wiktionary for me - to the point of my being infuriated by some exchanges here -, I haven't always been extremely pleasant either to people I was disagreeing with.
 * To be clear, I'm not overly fussed about the three entries you mention, though I still think it would be a mistake to keep them. What worries me are some of the arguments invoked to keep them. I think accepting those arguments as valid would open the door to a flurry of useless entries. PUC – 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rules are never common sense, they are devised to counter the lack thereof, and are unable to reproduce it, else they would be artificial intelligence. Only practitioners or originators of law can have common sense, it is clearly senseless to claim common sense being the words of a law, it is always arguing for one’s own common sense in pursuing the goals of the lawmaker with the lawbooks as a hopeful hint of common sense. Since the linearity of language—in which a mission is expressed—leaves only incomplete clues, with your literalist system you aren’t even trying to find common sense, bd2412. Fay Freak (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not proposed to keep "smoothrunning"; I agree with editors who correctly say that it should be sent to RfV. If its existence can't be attested with durably archived citations, then it will be deleted per the rules of that board, and smooth-running will need some other basis if it is to be kept. It is no solution to say that this process should be short-circuited by doing away with WT:COALMINE, thereby leaving odd gaps in attested alternative spellings of attested terms. bd2412 T 02:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV. (No reason to exclude it if it's common enough.) - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving to RFV. For now, I'll keep this discussion here for cleanliness/being organized, but if someone wants to move it to the RFV discussion, feel free to do so. AG202 (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2022–February 2023
Per the result at. AG202 (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve only found one book where the author uses the form smoothrunning (and twice, so clearly unintentional) . The number of clear uses on Twitter goes well into double figures, even ignoring invalid hits like #smoothrunning, as it does on the wider internet as can be seen by doing an advanced Google search but most of these instances are probably typos. We could perhaps get away with listing it as a misspelling &/or non-standard form of smooth running or smooth-running but they all seem SOP to me (though that’s no longer technically relevant now, I suppose). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More hits from archive.org:, , , , , , , , . 98.170.164.88 00:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good find. I think we can call this cited. Whether anyone wants to create separate entries for smooth running and smooth-running or do the opposite and RFD this after passing the verification process is another matter. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please remember to add the cites to the page itself. AG202 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Cited at the entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed Ioaxxere (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)