Talk:71-year-old

Deletion discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

71-year-old

Is this SOP? It's the only entry like it that we have, AFAICT; the only entry in Category:English words suffixed with -year-old. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(I was unsure at first and hence posed this as a question, but I'm persuaded that deleting or redirecting is the appropriate course of action here. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

• Didn't we have a run of these a few months ago? bd2412 T 01:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And didn't we all redirect them someplace? Redirect to that place. Purplebackpack89 01:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The discussion was about twelve-year-old, and there was no consensus for deletion – as you can see, the entry is still in existence. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I revert to my answer to the previous discussion. Keep those at round numbers that are attested. Redirect the rest to them. bd2412 T 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. Equinox ◑ 03:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect. DCDuring TALK 10:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to -year-old. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Smuconlaw here -- Delete or redirect to -year-old. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep I'm afraid, at least I see no justification to delete it assuming it had three citations. Ƿidsiþ 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the basic issue is that not all hyphens are the same: there's the hyphen that connects the parts of a compound, and there's the hyphen that's used as an orthographic convention to show that a phrase is being used attributively. It's not as obvious as Chinese, where you can have a whole sentence transformed into a subordinate clause modifying what follows by adding 的 in between, but it's basically the same thing. There's no real limit but unwieldiness to what kind of verbiage can be shoehorned into such a clause: do we really want to have entries like oh-so-predictable, or sexy-as-hell? Just randomly picking up something from Google Books, I can see evidence on a single page for twenty-eight-foot(-long), thirty-four-foot(-long), thirty-six-foot(-long), forty-foot-long, forty-two-foot, fifty-five-foot, and then there's "thirty-five- to forty-five-footers"- however you want to split that up. Or how about 13-foot-four-inch-by-56-foot-six-inch? The existence of things like thirty-four-and-three-quarter-year-old further points to this construction being a phrase with hyphens and not a single word. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even if this is kept, it seems clear that "-year-old" is not a suffix (as the entry currently asserts), any more than "-silly" is a suffix in other equally-silly constructions. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would keep all of these, and generate the ones that are missing (that meet CFI). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this not feel a bit like the E1S1 (episode, series) that you were eventually convinced against? Equinox ◑ 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Delete, per you and Chuck Entz. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have said keep as I'd consider it as a single word not as three words simply connected by a hyphen. But I hate to spoil a clear consensus so put me down as no opinion. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Abstain. In Talk:twelve-year-old, I invoked the translation target as a rationale. It might probably be invoked here as well, but I think we should stop somewhere for these <number>-year-old entries, and 71 is a pretty high number. As for whether it is a single word, it is my guess that the putative principle that all CFI-attested space-free hyphenated strings are automatically included as idiomatic will not find consensus, and not even a plain-majority support; more on this by Chuck Entz above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  "We should stop somewhere" sounds more like an oppose... Equinox ◑ 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well yes, but I have a tender heart for entries :). And I have some sympathy for the include-all-attested-hyphenated-compounds position. My abstain should be sufficiently conducive to deletion or redirection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Redirected to -year-old. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)