Talk:glass door

RFD discussion: August–November 2022

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.

---

glass door

Definition is "a door made of glass" and it isn't even attested; SOP. Translations into German and Finnish are just compound words without spaces; in any case whether 'glass door' has its own word in other languages should not impact whether it has an English Wiktionary page. As a relative newcomer to Wiktionary, it is obvious to me that it should be deleted.
However, looking into the history a bit reveals that this was thrown up in the famous 'coalmine' debate of yesteryear (see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Overturning COALMINE) which may make the deletion of 'glass door' a bit more contentious. Still, imho the inclusion of 'coalmine' in the set phrase 'canary in the coalmine' would distinguish it from other words sometimes grouped with it, namely 'glass door' here. Lasmisme^ (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lasmisme^ Welcome! I would suggest reviewing WT:THUB. While it doesn’t apply in this case, a word with multiple single-word non-compound translations in other languages can be kept with the specific caveat that it’s a translation hub. Some examples include older brother and gay man. So it can impact a word’s inclusion. As for this word in particular, since WT:COALMINE is binding policy, I’ll be voting keep. (Also, if attestation were an issue it’d be at RFV) AG202 (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. Binarystep (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The alt forms are weird. "Glassdoor" surely would be stressed on the first syllable? Equinox ◑ 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete unless the unspaced version is better attested. It looks like an extremely rare typo rather than a term which was widely used at some point. - TheDaveRoss 12:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

glassdoor has 3 attesting quotations in the entry. glass door,(glassdoor*500) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer. suggests glassdoor is a common misspelling in 20th century, but was much more common in 19th century: glass door,(glassdoor*50) at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. Without glassdoor deleted as a rare misspelling, WT:COALMINE mandates keeping glass door. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Due to Google's OCR having difficulty with word-wrap and especially multiple columns, I would be sceptical of any quantitative measure based on it involving presence or absence of spaces or hyphens. I've seen far too many results where the OCR splices a word at the beginning of column 1 onto the word at the end of column 3, or a form with a hyphen at the end of one line is spliced without a hyphen onto the form at the beginning of the next line. I don't trust anything that doesn't involve looking at the actual image of the original. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

They also have dating issues not infrequently, especially with self-published "books", and with a major company being called "Glassdoor" it further muddies the waters. - TheDaveRoss 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

1) Is this a glass door?

2) Is this a glass door?

Word-wrap is a fair point, and thus my mistake. I looked at google books:"glassdoor" restrained to 19th century and checked some of the first hits, and they were word-wrap artifacts. Thus, delete glassdoor as a rare misspelling and COALMINE is moot. As for glass door, it is in Collins[1]. Does the fact that the door is not made from glass as a whole play any role? We have "door made of glass", which would be too restrictive if the doors in the images I placed to the right were glass doors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Those attesting quotations are highly suspect. The first one is from a publication which uses "glass door" in every other instance I can find, so most likely a typo. The third is from an advertisement and not in running text, and they also use the spaced version elsewhere in their literature. The second is iffiest of all, this link shows the scanned page, it appears to be some other piece of printed material set on top of the magazine it purports to be from. Maybe it is an insert, I don't know. Everywhere else the publication uses the spaced version. This is not good evidence to support the widespread use of the term. The evidence may exist, but these three citations should not be enough to pass an RFV in my view. - TheDaveRoss 14:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, per the existence of sliding door. Also, create sliding glass door, which is not necesarily a sliding glass door. bd2412 T 07:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• RFD kept: no 2/3-supermajority consensus and no overriding concern identified (WT:VP). COALMINE is correctly applied since glassdoor is an entry. glassdoor was not sent to RFD or RFV, where it could have failed, and then, COALMINE would have been void. I suspect it would pass RFV; a RFD would be required. However, given that antimuslim is now in RFD and being kept despite the extreme rarity, it is hard to see what else than rarity would make glassdoor a misspelling or typographical error. glass-door is well attested in 19th century. If someone wants to send glassdoor to RFD, that is an option that could then result in a new RFD on glass door. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)