Talk:zwartepieten-

RFV discussion: December 2016
I don't speak Dutch, but this sure looks like just the plural of the standalone word being used in compounds. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I created this mostly as an experiment. I wanted to use this in the etymology section of words like zwartepietenpak, which is the compound of zwarte pieten and pak, not zwartepieten, which is a different noun, but I guess it could be explained in the etymology section without this prefix. I have no strong feelings about any of this, so this entry may be dealt with as appropriate. --Azertus (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The connected forms zwartepiet and zwartepieten do occur in the same sense, but it's very uncommon   . You could add a definition with the t:alternative spelling of template and then add a context label "uncommon" or "rare".  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I'll start by removing references to this item. --Azertus (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll add the missing senses later. As the creator of the page, is there a template I can use to fast-track its deletion? --Azertus (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I took that as a request and saved you the trouble. For future reference, you would use delete or its alias d. As for your original reasoning: the fact that something in a compound isn't a single standalone word doesn't make it a prefix: there are cranberry morphemes, and compounds of more than two words (.i.e. + + ). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)