Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-10/Application of idiomaticity rules to hyphenated compounds

Purpose of votes
The purpose of these votes is to determine whether we desire a simple yes/no application of general idiomaticity rules to hyphenated compounds, or whether special rules need to be developed. The intention of the wording is that the latter will be implied if neither option passes. Mihia (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Prefix vs. compound
One thing that might make a difference to some people (I don't know &mdash; it doesn't really to me) is whether the hyphen is attaching a prefix (like ) or joining two whole words. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it may do. This is one example of the "special rules" that may need to be developed if neither of these simple yes/no options passes. I did toy with making some exclusions or special cases in the first vote, but I thought it would be simplest if we eliminated, or approved as the case may be, the simplest options first. However, these kinds of observations will be useful in formulating the next proposal, if one is needed. Mihia (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hyphen cancer
I cannot think of an argument for making an exception for non-idiomatic hyphenated compounds in which the first component is a prefix (mega-offer, mega-opportunity, mega-sale, ...). Such an exception will open a mega-door for a giga-flood of super-boring entries. --Lambiam 06:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That's why the "repulsion" to those suggestions is "if you support X, we will have to do Y and Z". I seem to remember that we have an actual rule (lol, imagine Wiktionary having a rule, like Wikipedia's ancient crumbling Gormenghast of conflicting policies) saying that you shouldn't take a position on the grounds of things getting worse. But I tend to trust my years of experience over what some wiki intern wrote. Equinox ◑ 08:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We used to call it a "slippery slope". My reasoning is that if the hyphenated form exists out there, then we should include it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So would you include literally every hyphenated compound, like greasy-haired, late-arriving, kumquat-flavoured? Don't you come from a comp sci background? Do you remember Big O Notation? Equinox ◑ 08:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WWWD What Would Webster Do
(My off the cuff opinion without looking at the above discussion) Option 1 and Option 2 both seem a little extreme for me. There are hyphenated words that really seem like legitimate words that need to be documented in this dictionary that I would never consider to be solely a "sum of parts" even though they basically are, and there are times when people are combining two words with a hyphen but it's not intended as a word or idiom even if used rather commonly. I would guess that there's got to have been a standard for these situations that was used in other dictionaries historically and I would (hypothetically) like to see a comparison between Option 1, Option 2 and the policies of other dictionaries historically before I would cast a vote in favor of either proposal. We can't be the first people to have encountered this problem. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have specific examples of compounds that would be excluded by Option 1 that you feel should be kept, or compounds that would be allowed by Option 2 that you feel should be excluded, then please share them as this may be useful in formulating a subsequent proposal, if one should be needed. Mihia (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Language?
Does this vote only apply to the English language, or to all languages? -- Curious (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see this. Mihia (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)