Talk:lung cancer

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

lung cancer

Definition says all. -- Liliana • 20:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, straightforward. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What they said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep for translations. —CodeCat 21:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Translations can just use [[lung]] [[cancer]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep, many people would not know this was the English term, as pulmonary cancer and it's cognates in other languages are far more common, plus lung cancer also effects the entire respiratory system not just the lungs, broncials, bronchius, alveoli. It can effect the trachea, pulmonary arterey, vena cava, aorta. etc. not to mention pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanocaniasisLucifer 18:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a disease name, which makes it a set term. ---> Tooironic 22:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep because it's a disease name. It's the usual name, rather than pulmonary cancer (much less common), etc. Nobody can guess this simple fact. Lmaltier 06:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Recreate prostate cancer, then? --Hekaheka 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep and recreate prostate cancer as far as I'm concerned. If we don't have CFI for common or serious diseases, then we should. Hospitals often struggle to find translations for all diseases or conditions, medicine names, in all languages, keeping short lists. Wiktionary is a good place for such translations. It's simple and atomic enough. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 06:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that even toe cancer gets 93 Google Book hits. Do we want toe cancer just to house translations? I'd rather we didn't kep entries that have interesting translations, pronunciation, etymologies (etc.) even when the entry itself is unjustifiable from a linguistic point of view, like this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We haven't defined CFI for non-idiomatic translations and the phrasebook but it may be coming soon. When there was a poll in BP I expressed my suggestion among others. I don't see much value in toe cancer entry, as it is a very uncommon disease, there's not so many articles writing about toe cancer but lung cancer and prostate cancer are well-known. Yes, the primary need in non-idiomatic multipart word entries I see in translations, even more than etymology and pronunciation. We do have many SoP's, which are useful and important but it doesn't always seem to be easy for some to distinguish between the value "blue sky" and "fur coat". I don't know why many are overzealous to delete. I don't mean we need to keep everything and I only post on this page when I want something kept. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't talk for everyone of course, but it does worry me when definitions take a 'back seat' and entries are create for interesting translations, pronunciation, etymology or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We have so many people working on English definitions, I don't think this area is neglected. You once said that you don't care what other dictionaries include but it's worth looking what dictionaries include, like names of diseases, professions, common items are usually included, even if the words have spaces between them (SoP, multipart words, whatever). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Striking as Kept. bd2412 T 17:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)