Talk:themseaufwärts

themseaufwärts
Book case of SOP. Korn (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think we've ever considered single words to be SOP in violation of CFI. If were too SOP to include, then  and  and  would be too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why singlewordness would be an argument against SOP. Decisionmaker is equally book case SOP and should go as well, yes. Korn (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously the rules we usually use for English cannot be applied to other languages. You can do this with virtually every other river in the world, like rheinaufwärts, donauaufwärts etc. -- Liliana • 21:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Requires prior knowledge that this is a compound word, something that is not obvious to a non-German speaker like myself. Actually, the fact that German even has compound words may not be known to many. --Dmol (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we allow 'is compound word written without space' as a CFI, we're opening the floodgates for terrabytes of German and Finnish nonce words, though. Korn (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both German and Finnish are both WDLs, though. Any word that is not attestable per CFI can be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a sort of good point, but what about little attested languages? Do you propose we should allow SOP terms for languages that write these terms without spaces?Korn (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For LDLs, a term must have at least one mention (not even a use), e.g. being listed in a print dictionary is sufficient. So even for those languages we have to show that someone else has either used or mentioned the term in question. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep since the components are not considered separate (WT:CFI); see also Talk:Zirkusschule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The arguments in Tanzschule are convincing, but do not actually hold up to the current policy which says 'if SOP, delete'. This is SOP and hence has to go according to the rules set up. I propose to amend the CFI to accommodate for foreign languages with continuously spelled compounds. Because I would interpret "separate" as 'parts exists outside of compound' and never have gotten the idea that it should mean 'compound is not spelled in a single word'. (I still don't think that's what was meant, actually.) Policies should be specific, though. While proposing this change, I still point out the floodgates that opens one more time; maybe someone can find a workaround, or we just accept the possibility. Korn (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me cite the actual policy for you, from WT:CFI, and let me note that WT:CFI does not contain the string "if SOP, delete". The policy text is this, boldface mine: "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." The components Tanz and Schule are not considered separate in Tanzschule, and therefore Tanzschule is considered idiomatic per our policy. Our policy does not define "separate", but our common practice does. Since this is an Angloamerican project, common practice is important, and can comfortably complement our policies where they are silent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I have read the policy. It says 'CFI are attested and idiomatic', it says 'non-idiomatic is called SOP', this is a place to delete entries which do not meet CFI, ergo this project says: If SOP, delete.
 * To repeat myself: The term 'themseaufwärts' is not idiomatic as defined here, since, as you quoted yourself, looking at each of its separate components allows you do derive the meaning of the compound term.
 * If you want to tell me that my interpretation of the word 'separate' ('each part taken for itself') is only a result of my complete and utter inability to use the English language and instead 'separate' can only mean 'currently being rendered in written form with spaces between all the words that can exist on their own', alright. If that isn't what you're saying, then the current policy isn't silent, it's, at best, ambivalent, although it seems rather plain to me. And instead of having this type of discussion popping up in regular intervals, it might be less time-consuming to just add a sentence of clarification. _Korn (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the sense of "separate" that gives rise to "separable prefix": "auf" in "aufmachen" is not separate while in "machen sie's auf", "auf" is separate. And Wiktionary definition of separate is "Apart from (the rest); not connected to or attached to (anything else)", which fits as well. It's like German "getrennt"; Duden for getrennt synonym section seems to confirm my understanding. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, we all know what 'separate' means. I'm also perfectly fine with accepting your interpretation that the policy means to say 'separately written' rather than 'separately considered', but as it is, it doesn't. Either way, though, since I don't actually agree with the idiomaticity criterion, I think I wasted enough of everybody's time arguing about its proper implementation just because we're stricken with it. I retract the RFD. I'll remove the tag and archive the discussion next week. Korn (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RfD retracted. bd2412 T 14:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)