Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Overturning COALMINE

CFI
COALMINE did not specify text in WT:CFI to be amended, and I would be OK with this vote also not specifying any amendment, since this vote proposed to return us to what CFI says already. However, I proposed CFI-language, in case any thinks it is a good idea to propose specific language to be put into CFI. Discuss! Should this vote contain that bit or not? - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to add anything specific to WT:CFI; and what's more, I think this might pass more easily without adding specific text. Some supporters of COALMINE felt that existence of a single-word form was evidence of idiomness. Repealing COALMINE would clearly still allow the existence of a single-word form to be presented as evidence (while still allowing for human judgment); adding any text that specifically countermands COALMINE might risk implying that such evidence is necessarily irrelevant. (I wouldn't read it that way, personally, but I could easily see someone voting against this because of a fear that the new text would be read that way.) —Ruakh TALK 20:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've removed that bit, because I share your assessment. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Answering the question "without coal mine, what would the definition of coalmine be?"
Coalmine]] can be defined as  Hisown]] can be defined as   - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Another option is to model a new template after, looking something like this:
 * see coal, mine.
 * —Ruakh TALK 21:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We could even add glosses, see coal ("black carbon fuel rock formed from prehistoric plant remains"), mine ("excavation from which solid minerals are taken"). Or not. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

allowing exclusion
changed the explanatory part of the "voting on" to "allowing a multi-word phrase to be excluded as unidiomatic even if...". I'm not sure I like this. "[A]llowing... to be excluded..." sounds to me like there's a presumption of inclusibility which must be debated each time rather than that the standard of idiomaticity from earlier in the document applies. I think the construction that that diff rewrote, "multi-word phrases would not be granted exemption from our usual CFI, even when... ((unless such phrases are granted exemption for other reasons...)", is better in that regard (though can certainly be tweaked). What do y'all think? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The first phrase is more exactly the inverse of COALMINE's language, but I do prefer the second phrase, as it clearly revokes the exemption (the granting of which was the effect of COALMINE). - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. The reason I didn't like the existing wording is that the main clause was "multi-word phrases would not be granted exemption from our usual CFI" — which has nothing to do with COALMINE. The relationship to COALMINE was supplied by a supplementary " even when" clause; that is, it implied that this vote was not only about COALMINE phrases, but about all phrases, "even" COALMINE ones. The ideal solution would be to have the subject of the sentence be "multi-word phrases for which there exist less-common single-word alternative spellings", but that seemed unduly awkward, so instead I tried to recast the sentence in such a way that the COALMINE clause was more fully integrated. Anyway — I've now given it another shot. Is the current version better? —Ruakh TALK 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking about the very last bit, "cause a significantly more common multiple-word term to meet CFI if it is unidiomatic": would "cause a significantly more common multiple-word term to meet CFI despite being unidiomatic" or "cause a significantly more common [but] unidiomatic multiple-word term to meet CFI" (without or without the "but") be better? - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter (with or without "but") be good IMO, but so is the current way. Either way. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tweaked it slightly. See what you (all) think. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of coal mine
I don't think it is true that in the absence of WT:COALMINE we would not have included coal mine. For example, simply following the practice of other dictionaries (the "lemming" approach) would lead to its inclusion (See .). There was obviously a rhetorical advantage in selecting "coal mine" as the headline case for the vote. (IOW, my then opposition to including coal mine doesn't comport with my beliefs. At the time I was surprised that no advocate took the trouble to check with some lemmings, especially as it is so easy to do so.) DCDuring TALK 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And indeed, [[coal mine]] had already passed RFD by the time [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word]] (alias [[WT:COALMINE]]) was created. —Ruakh TALK 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Examples of entries that could be deleted if this vote passes
What entries exist solely because of COALMINE, and could be deleted in case this vote passes? --Daniel 13:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * rock hard and prison guard have been discussed at RFD with regard to this. (Both rockhard and prisonguard seem to be non-standard.) Equinox ◑ 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * girly girl, ... -- Liliana • 14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * he or she -- Liliana • 16:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In all of these cases, it must be noted that it's hard to determine whether or not the entries exist solely because of COALMINE; other factors might come into play in an RFD discussion if COALMINE is no longer the most obvious defence (and I would object to the deletion of these entries without new RFD discussion, for that reason): [[he or she]], for example, was argued (by Ruakh) to be permissible for other reasons, and it was argued that sword-bearing (talk) and north wind (talk), even in the absence of swordbearing and northwind, would be permissible. I argued that roast beef passed under the fried egg test, though it also passed COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked through Special:Whatlinkshere/COALMINE, I daresay a majority of the entries which passed under COALMINE had other arguments (even if not ones that persuaded majorities of RFD voters) going for them. That makes sense, because there's usually a reason (perceived idiomaticity?) writers decide to write the multi-word terms without spaces. - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, amusingly, per the previous section on this page: not coal mine itself! - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * chess piece, too, I suppose. --Daniel 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps rose petal, flower petal and house door could be sent to RFV to determine whether or not they were set phrases, and the literal sense of old man could be made an &lit. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also him and. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will support annulling it after all! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also glass door and house wall and office wall and Chinese man ("a person who is both Chinese and a man"). - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "a person who is both Chinese and a man" is ridiculous. I don't think I can improve it very much, but I'm rewritting it. --Daniel 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just ridiculous, but also potentially offensive, insofar as it implies that it's remarkable for a person to be both of those things. Your rewrite is definitely an improvement, even though it defines "Chinese man" as "Chinese man". (And if we want to avoid that, then maybe "A man who is Chinese"?) —Ruakh TALK 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was trying to avoid the ridiculousness of defining "Chinese man" as "Chinese man". Ruakh's suggestion of "A man who is Chinese" seems like the best workaround (working around the obvious solution of not having the SOP entry "Chinese man"). - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, dog fur and house floor could be sent to RFV to determine whether or not they were set phrases, and the literal sense of ham sandwich (hamsandwich) could be made an &lit. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Was it really necessary to create obvious scanno junk like himand? We might not have Wikipedia's "don't game the system" rule, but creating junk to prove a point is annoying. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replied at WT:RFV. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the problem is if this vote passes, we might get rid of crap like dung heap, but we'll still have dungheap. That's why ultimately I'd rather find a way to exclude dungheap as sum of parts, or only a typo, then dung heap loses the protection from coalmine, and gets delete. Ditto more or less every word mentioned in the subsection. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)