Talk:shark-infested

This is SOP; compare lice-infested, mice-infested, rat-infested, etc. PUC – 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–October 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.

---

shark-infested

SOP, as pointed out by PUC. Consider lice-infested, mice-infested. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 02:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep. This term is used to describe sharks' natural habitats, and thus uses infested in a more anthropocentric way than other similar terms (it's far less common to describe a field as "mouse-infested", for instance). It's also supported by WT:LEMMING. Binarystep (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument. Could you reword it please? PUC – 09:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@PUC: Terms like lice-infested and mouse-infested are used to refer to animals taking over things created by humans (e.g. "lice-infested clothing", "mouse-infested basement"). On the other hand, shark-infested is a bit more unique in that it's used to refer to natural areas that sharks already lived in before humans showed up, essentially making it a dysphemism for "shark-inhabited". Binarystep (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Weak Keep as a dysphemism. I can’t say I’m entirely in board with the anthropocentrism point as farmers do talk about ‘mouse-infected’ or ‘mice-infected’ fields, orchards and the like. What do we think about rat-infested? Is there any lexical significance to the fact that people never say ‘rats-infected’ or ‘sharks-infected’ but they do say ‘mice-infested’ and ‘lice-infested’? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Abstain. PUC – 09:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep, but on the grounds that it only refers to sharks dangerous to humans. I would not describe areas with lots of basking sharks as shark-infested unless there were also sharks that actually pose a potential threat. (Maybe as a joke, but that only works because it’s misleading.) Theknightwho (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But that's inherit in the word "infested". An infestation is by its nature a problem, so the presence of something that you don't mind being there isn't an infestation. Saying something is "X-infested" is saying something bad about Xes (see, for instance "lawyer-infested"). Also, this is easily restated in an obviously SOP format: "shark-infested" waters are waters that are infested with sharks. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s true but we have a whole category called ‘Category:English terms suffixed with -ridden‘ which are similar to this. rat-ridden seems to be missing from the category and can’t be added, at least by me, due to it being an autocategory, so someone should fix this. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per the above as used to characterize the natural presence of sharks (limited to kinds that are dangerous to humans) as an infestation. bd2412 T 03:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• How about crocodile-infested and lion-infested? Drapetomanic (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I see no harm in creating those if you like. In my book, we should keep all such attested terms , like rat-ridden, or delete all such terms. Whatever we decide should be consistent. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep per reasons already presented. AG202 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Leasnam (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• RFD kept: this is snowball by now, whatever the merit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)