Talk:candidalike
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Widsith in topic RFV discussion
RFV discussion
[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It has three citations. However, many more are available for (deprecated template usage) Candidalike. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's because it's SOP Candida (as in C. albicans + like. Unfortunately, this apparently takes it past the limits of our current interpretation of CFI. By extension, every noun xx that serves as an exemplar of something could have an entry if three different sources refer to something as being xxlike in CFI-worthy publications. I would suggest that this is really a hyphenated xx-like without the hyphen, but I'm not sure it would do any good. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had tagged it, but didn't have enough passion for the RfV even to post it here. I thought this form might not be in use. I certainly would never use it without a hyphen.
- Doesn't COALMINE apply? Candida-like appears to be more common than candidalike, thus warranting an entry. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- None of this is really relevant, but I think the solution to making WT:COALMINE more reasonable is to sometimes delete single word SOP entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- As you say, this is tangential, but I think we should keep words (as opposed to multi-word phrases) because it isn't obvious where to split them. Currently, if we lack a word, the reasons are (1) no-one has created it, or (2) it isn't attested. If we sometimes delete supposedly "SOP" words (I dispute that single words can even be SOP), then when someone looks up, say, "Bamilike" to understand the phrase "Bamilike warriors" and "Candidalike" to understand "Candidalike yeast", and we don't have an entry for either, it's unclear whether that is because no-one has created them, or because they're SOP (and no-one has created *"Bami). It turns out, "Bamilike" is a variant of "Bameleke". - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but why can't we just do something like this when we agree a word is SOP? --WikiTiki89 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought we are "supposed to" do if the separate-word form is more common. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but why can't we just do something like this when we agree a word is SOP? --WikiTiki89 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- As you say, this is tangential, but I think we should keep words (as opposed to multi-word phrases) because it isn't obvious where to split them. Currently, if we lack a word, the reasons are (1) no-one has created it, or (2) it isn't attested. If we sometimes delete supposedly "SOP" words (I dispute that single words can even be SOP), then when someone looks up, say, "Bamilike" to understand the phrase "Bamilike warriors" and "Candidalike" to understand "Candidalike yeast", and we don't have an entry for either, it's unclear whether that is because no-one has created them, or because they're SOP (and no-one has created *"Bami). It turns out, "Bamilike" is a variant of "Bameleke". - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- None of this is really relevant, but I think the solution to making WT:COALMINE more reasonable is to sometimes delete single word SOP entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's because it's SOP Candida (as in C. albicans + like. Unfortunately, this apparently takes it past the limits of our current interpretation of CFI. By extension, every noun xx that serves as an exemplar of something could have an entry if three different sources refer to something as being xxlike in CFI-worthy publications. I would suggest that this is really a hyphenated xx-like without the hyphen, but I'm not sure it would do any good. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Verified. Ƿidsiþ 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)