Talk:host country

RFD discussion: December 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.

---

host country

As per Tea room, some people seem to think that this entry created by User:‎Tooironic is sum of parts, and should be deleted. I am creating this nomination for them. Tea room is not a proper venue for deleting entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete, it means a country that is a host. Most readers can put two words together, we don't need to do it for them every time. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to keep but will wait for the discussion to unfold. Present in Collins[1]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that there could be a meaning in international law, which would probably be idiomatic were it attested. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at several books with "law" in the title and host country in the text, I found none that felt the need to define the term, no matter what they were hosting. But someone else may find such cases. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Undecided at the moment. "host family" merits an entry as a translation target, IMO. A Japanese derivation of "host family": ホストファミリー (hosuto famirī). + Korean 호스트 패밀리 (hoseuteu paemilli). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, my copy of Daijirin clearly indicates that their editors parsed this as two words, ホスト + ファミリー. I'm happy to agree that ホストファミリー (hosuto famirī) is a single idiomatic Japanese term, but as English, it isn't idiomatic, and even Japanese learners of English are likely to guess that this comes from host + family. I can't speak for Korean learners of English, but I suspect the same holds true for them. I.e., there's not much need or even value in having host family as an English term, even as a translation target. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Most readers can put two words together" isn't in and of itself an argument, if for no other reason than it leaves the ones who can't out in the cold. Purplebackpack89 05:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously? I nearly fell over when I read your comment earlier this morning. If someone is so clueless about English that they cannot string together words, then a dictionary is not the resource they need.

Comments like this make me wonder if you're trolling. That's not hyperbole -- I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you're WF. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to request for CU me versus WF, go ahead. You'll just be wasting your time. But the argument Renard is making is that words that everybody supposedly knows or can easily be figured out should be deleted. That argument can be reduced to absurdity PDQ: the logical next step after deleting every two-word entry everybody supposedly knows the meaning of is deleting every one-word entry everybody supposedly knows. While Renard is not arguing this, it is a not entirely illogical next step from the "everybody knows it"/"everybody can figure it out" argument. Purplebackpack89 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that logic isn't your strong suit. I don't say that to be mean, or snarky. Just a simple observation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• As the creator of this entry, I don't mind it being deleted - as long as the relevant senses are included at host. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tooironic IMO, Sorry, but you should protect entries you create or not create them at all. You seem to focus on compound words a lot lately, which may potentially be RFD'ed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: For the reasons I outlined in the Tea Room, namely that "host" is ambiguous. Purplebackpack89 05:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  Not a CFI argument. So is red car. After all it could be a Trabant or a railroad car or […] . DCDuring TALK 14:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  Well, it should be in CFI, dammit. And CFI shouldn't be the be-all, end-all that you're making it. Purplebackpack89 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought we're ditch CFI. Also, a blue car would them meet CFI because it doesn't mean a depressed or melancholy car. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete 1 & 3, Keep 2. 1 and 3 are clearly just host + country, but the immigration sense is a little odder. An immigrant may be wanted or unwanted, and they may be planning a temporary stay or a permanent move. "host" in its usual senses implies that the host is actively looking after the guest, and that the guest is staying temporarily. You can't (outside the biological world of hosts and parasites, which is not very applicable to humans) host someone inadvertently, and you can't host a permanent resident. Yet google books:"permanently in the host country" and google books:"citizenship of the host country" shows quite a few results where even naturalized, long-term immigrants are described as living in a "host country". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Ungoliant (below) has persuaded me that what we really need is a new definition of host as "One who provides accommodation for another". Delete all Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  Then do we need an entry for unwelcome guest because of the contradiction between (one sense of) guest and unwlecome? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 disrupts discussion

• I know what we don't need...we don't need you berating everybody who votes keep, @DCDuring Purplebackpack89 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So nobody should have their opinions questioned ever, that's your stance on the matter? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but conversely, DCDuring beating me over the head, and anybody else who votes keep, on every single comment we make, is disruptive. Notice on this page how few delete votes have immediate replies by me. Most of the comments I make on RfD begin with "Keep" votes by me; I spend most of my breath here defending my keep votes rather than attacking other's delete votes. Purplebackpack89 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean questioning someone's opinions is wrong unless you or someone who agrees with you is doing it. It's the most blatant hypocrisy you will ever see. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, no... What I mean is that it's unfair for them to question me a lot if I only question them a little. They regard me as disruptive when I comment, yet comment much more often than I do. That would suggest they are also disruptive. Purplebackpack89 02:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 It's not about how much you comment, it's about what you say. Everyone's comments here were on topic until your 18:22 comment. --WikiTiki89 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I'd say it was the 18:09 "unwelcome guest" comment we derailed at. "unwelcome guest" isn't really related to "host country". It's a complete non-sequitur; everybody's heard the "what about THIS?" if we keep THAT from DCDuring and Equinox a zillion times. Purplebackpack89 03:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

DCDuring's comment at 18:09 was 100% on topic. It referenced another phrase as an example to refute an argument. Your comment at 18:22 (and I just realized that you made two comments at that time, so to clarify, I am referring to "we don't need you berating everybody who votes keep") was not a refutation, but simply a request to stop arguing. If people aren't allowed to argue, we might as well get rid of the whole RFD page. --WikiTiki89 08:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a very bad argument. It's predicated on the assumption that: 1) deletion discussions are linked and not independent, 2) unwelcome guest and host country are equally (un)deserving of entries, and 3) unwelcome guest shouldn't have an entry. Purplebackpack89 14:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. — Keφr 07:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(To try to bring this back on topic) I wouldn't actually be opposed to an entry for unwelcome guest (it has some unusual metaphorical meanings), although the addition of the adjective "unwelcome" makes its meaning fairly transparent. Here, there's no adjective which can disambiguate. I also have to say, DCDuring's question was perfectly fair, and I don't really need people trying to stick up for me. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete. All senses are host + country. Even if the use of host with regards to migration is found to be special (which I don’t think it is, because you can find usage of human hosts who have perpetual or unwanted guests), we’d need to add a new definition of host as it is possible to use it with a multitude of nouns (hоst nation, hоst state, hоst republic, hоst province, hоst city, etc.). In addition, host country is not even a set phrase because host can be used outside the phrase, as in “the country is host to about 800,000 legal and at least 300,000 illegal foreign workers”. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete all senses per RM and Ungoliant. --WikiTiki89 01:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep per Lemming test. I prefer users to come to Wiktionary, rather than Collins and if we make the Lemming test part of our CFI, we'll stop reduce significantly wasting time on RFD discussions. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• We could just as well say delete per lemming test: Merriam-Webster doesn't have an entry for “host country”.

How many lemmings do we need to bake a pie? And does it matter what kind of lemmings they are? I'm not familiar with this recipe. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never tasted lemming pie, but, just to add to the recipe, my Millennium Collins dictionary doesn't have it (though the on-line edition does), and the OED has an entry under compounds of host, but not a separate definition. (OTOH, the OED includes host computer and we consider that sum of parts.) Dbfirs 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

For the trolls, see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/January#Proposal:_Use_Lemming_principle_to_speed_RfDs. IMO, no need to check ALL dictionaries (OED, Merriam-Webster) but Collins is a reputable dictionary. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Trolls? What trolls? Where? Purplebackpack89 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a joke, I meant the "recipes" and "pies" mentioned above. We could make at least a list of approved English dictionaries for the Lemming test, OED, Collins, MW would be a good start. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, the lemming test is just another of the many possible markers of potential idiomaticity. The most inclusive list (Pawley's) of such markers did not suggest that any one marker was sufficient. We incorporated into CFI the attestably-spelled-solid test (aka WT:COALMINE) as one sufficient to justify including more common open-spelled forms. We rejected making the lemming test another sufficient test as part of WT:CFI, partially because we could not get toward agreement on specifics, even for a test.

There are many academic discussions of idiomaticity, but it is difficult to find any likely to lead to a sufficient consensus to amend CFI. In addition, since having CFI provides little defense against blathering advocacy of unadopted and even rejected rules, there is little incentive to try to improve CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "we rejected". I don't think this discussion is over and I don't think enough editors voted or seriously considered that discussion. A Lemming test rule in CFI would be a lot of help in reducing lengthy and useless discussion and reduce anxiety of editing entries, which might be targeted by RFD's. The list of dictionaries can be voted on. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "we rejected": where is this allegged rejection? In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Proposal: Use Lemming principle to speed RfDs, I see about 9 posts in support direction and about 3 posts in oppose direction (but please check my counting). There is no unequivocal rejection that I can detect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The devil is in the details. I detected clear evidence of lack of consensus. You have the option of proposing a vote to demonstrate that there is no specific proposal that will be accepted. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If in doubt, keep. No need for all the argy-bargy. Donnanz (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)