Talk:Tardis-like

RFD discussion: August 2019–March 2020

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Tardis-like and spelling variations

It's rather SOPpy to me. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep all. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. It makes sense to collect “shapes”. This is unlike the SOP meaning of -like as here the meaning has a lexical restriction to shape, and even allegedly used by estate agents to mean lodgments that are larger than they look from the outside (“unexpectedly capacious”). In other languages, one would write these things together anyway. telefonzellenartig, volksmäßig etc. Fay Freak (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep "Tardis-like" as it has specific meanings, especially "unexpectedly capacious", that are not necessarily obvious. Generally speaking, delete all "X-like" where the explanation is no more than, essentially, "like X", and where, in usage, the resemblance is based only on obvious features or is ad hoc context-related. Mihia (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It occurred to me later that this "keep" rationale is largely bollocks. If the aim of the dictionary is to document characteristic features of a Tardis, so that people may understand what it means for something to be likened to it, then this information should go at Tardis, since those people could just as easily encounter "like a Tardis" or some other multi-word paraphrase. Mihia (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

But then we would add this detail to the definition of “Tardis”/“TARDIS” only because this is an implication in “Tardis-like” and “like a tardis”? Fay Freak (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of a head-scratcher, but I think that if something has a non-obvious characteristic that is widely referenced in comparisons or likenings, then this should be mentioned under the main headword. I think that a Tardis being unexpectedly capacious is a good example of this. In fact, this characteristic is already mentioned at "Tardis", though the situation there is complicated by the fact that there is both a proper noun and a common noun section. I think this sort of thing should be strictly limited, though, according to the principles of "non-obvious" and "widely referenced", otherwise it could get silly. Mihia (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Tardislike exists, and can't be SOP because it is a single word. The rest are WT:COALMINE to it. bd2412 T 12:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC) [Equinox note: I tweaked the broken link because it's clear what BD intended.]
• Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would never reject any -like derivative where a hyphen is inserted; I would prefer angel-like to angellike, which looks awful because of the double L where the two halves are joined. DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Tardislike is one single word. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL... oh no... keep and revisit WT:COALMINE. Equinox ◑ 03:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is an opportunity to do so. Mihia (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• As for COALMINE, Tardis-like, Tardislike at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. does not find Tardislike, so Tardislike could be deleted as a rare misspelling (WT:CFI#Spellings), and then Tardis-like would have no WT:COALMINE protection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe just delete the sense "shaped like a phone booth"? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep per BD. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• RFD kept per consensus. A separate RFD on #Tardislike (later at Talk:Tardislike) does not seem to lead to deletion either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)