Talk:un-Mario-like

RFD discussion: May–September 2021
Is this not clearly SOP? &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 19:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would wager it's just hyphenated, and has decent citations backing it up, but I made the page so we should get more advice on this. StuckInLagToad (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of “just hyphenated”? --Lambiam 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Commonly, when a word is formed by adding an affix to a capitalized word (such as a proper noun), the parts are orthographically separated by a hyphen, as in and . A word formed by adding an affix to a stem, rather than combining several stems, is traditionally not considered a compound, so this is not a “hyphenated compound” – unlike the undesirables listed at the end of the section WT:SOP (although I think wine-lovers can be found in coalmines). So, as a word, it is (IMO) not essentially different from . Perhaps we need to re-open the discussion (there are also “un-Biden-like”, and so on), but this is not covered by the letter of the existing hyphenated-compound clause.  --Lambiam 12:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a coal-mine populated by wine-lovers be a wine-cave? ;) But yes, this is not a compound word. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or find reference outside of the Mario franchise. Mario and Marioesque have transcended the Nintendo world into the English language, but I'm not convinced un-Mario-like has done the same. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * addendum: Googling "un-Mario-like" -Bros -Super  doesn't give much of anything, and I like Colin M's rationale, e.g. who needs un-Biden-like? Facts707 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It may legitimately be questioned whether the term meets WT:FICTION, but that is a question for RfV. --Lambiam 23:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FICTION does not apply, as this term, like Marioesque, did not originate in the fictional universe, in contrast to Mario himself. DAVilla 22:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as not a compound. Regarding Facts707's rationale, send it to RFV if you want to (I neither endorse nor oppose that), but don't use RFD to bypass WT:Fiction. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  16:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. SOP would mean not like Mario the person/character. This is in reference to the style of game. DAVilla 22:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * However, lemma should be at Mariolike, with Mario-like as alt. DAVilla 10:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Lambian, Lingo Bindo Dingo: Properly speaking it's indeed not a compound and hence also no hyphenated compound. However, Wiktiony has it's own terminology. It's using "Derived terms" for both derived terms (derivatives, derivates, formed by derivation) and compound terms (compounds, compound words, formed by composition). And it's using "hyphenated compound" (WT:CFI, WT:vote) for non-compounds as well, as can be seen in the example which is . Tetris-like was already deleted, though before the "hyphenated compound" rule. --2003:DE:3728:BF54:79BA:FF5A:8C6E:321A 12:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, a compound is a type of derived term so that is not very peculiar. Using "hyphenated compound" for a derived word that is not a compound word is just an error, nobody is bound by that kind of terminological mistake. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Imetsia (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a policy-based reason I can vote delete, but if this ends up being kept, I hope it will prompt a reckoning about tightening up CFI. Something like un-Mario-like is clearly not lexicalized. It's just an ad-hoc coinage with a meaning which is predictable based on the sum of its parts. Why does it matter whether those parts are separated by spaces, dashes, or the empty string? Making entries for every combination of bases and affixes ever used is a waste of time, and a drag on the project. We don't need this, or Mario-like, or un-Biden-like, or Marioesque, or anti-Mario, or pseudo-Mario... the frictional coefficient of this slope is close to 0. Colin M (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as sum-of-parts. In formulating the existing CFI wording, I had no intention whatsoever that "hyphenated compounds" would not include hyphenated terms incorporating "-like" and the like. If some people interpret it that way, then yes, we need to change the wording (or vote on changing it, hopefully successfully), e.g. to "hyphenated terms". However, I note that nobody, either in the vote or the discussion, made any suggestion that ex-teacher, one of the examples given, is not a "hyphenated compound". I fully agree with Colin M that closed words can be SoP as easily as open or hyphenated terms, but I think that formulating rules to exclude pointless entries e.g. explaining that "Xlike" means "like X", while keeping the ones that we want to keep, could be tricky. Meanwhile, we have the nonsense that "X-like" survives if someone can find three citations of "Xlike". Also, there is the issue, which I have mentioned before, of whether our purpose might be to record actual usage of e.g. pumpkinlike ("Resembling a pumpkin" -- no kidding) rather than (just) define it. Mihia (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as SOP. (I wouldn't delete ones that are unhyphenated, though.) - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  13:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed. DAVilla 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)