Talk:submarine-launched ballistic missile

RFD discussion: July–August 2016
Sop. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412 T 14:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes delete SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How am I supposed to tell which sense of "submarine" applies? Was this missile launched from a naval craft or from a hoagie? j/k, delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe just from underwater somewhere (an underwater hoagie?). Or maybe it's fitted with an underwater boat... or not. Delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We could, however, have an entry for submarine-launched. There is a distinction between things launched from a submarine (noun sense 1), a vessel able to launch things whether the vessel itself is underwater or on the surface, and things that are launched submarine (adjective sense 1). bd2412 T 15:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Though isn't the point is that it always means one sense of, either as in the vessel or as in underwater. Hence the reader can refer to submarine in any case. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * gak! Delete. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an abbreviation for this - . DonnanZ (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course that should be kept, without question. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The existence of such an abbreviation is evidence supporting keeping the spelled-out term, according to Pauley, though I've never thought it sufficient and Pauley doesn't say it is and doesn't have a list of sufficient conditions at all. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm aware of this, I just don't agree. Initialisms are for convenience rather than a representation of lexical setness. That's my view, anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. A good example is . —CodeCat 18:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I take it that is OK? DonnanZ (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You could RfD it, but I suspect that there is a much stronger case for keeping it. Eg, Some OneLook dictionaries (eg, Collins and WordNet) have, but none have . DCDuring TALK 21:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)