Talk:stone wall

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.

---

stone wall

Does it get more SOP than this? "A wall made of stone" - I'd never have guessed. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems silly; delete. (There's stonewall, but that's something different, so not a COALMINE case.) Equinox ◑ 17:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have some one-word translations... Siuenti (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• This does not meet my translation target criterion so far, since all the translations seem to be closed word-for-word compounds: German Steinmauer (Stein + Mauer) or Finnish kivimuuri (kivi + muuri). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. In fact, stonewall is a good reason for keeping it, and I have added a link to it. There's an awful lot of negative thinking going on. Donnanz (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But the entry doesn't show that stone wall has the non-SoP meaning that stonewall has. WT:COALMINE should not apply. DCDuring TALK 10:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the coalmine principle doesn't apply, I added the link to show the difference between stonewall and stone wall. Think "outside the box" if you can. Donnanz (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:COALMINE. I readded sense "A wall made up of stone" to stonewall; google books:"stonewalls" suggests the sense "a wall made up of stone" can be found. Some quotations: "There is Jackson standing like a stonewall."; "Stonewalls to rebuild, 7s. to 10s., according to height, facility of getting stones, &c. "; "the country was an amazing strong one, full of hills, woods, stonewalls, &C., "; "The enemy were intrenched behind stonewalls, and other cover, and it seemed like rushing into the jaws of death to charge them." If you still doubt the existence of the sense in "stonewall", please open RFV-sense on it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  Even so, still redundant to {{&lit}}. It would still be included. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  I dislike {{&lit}}, especially in an entry that would contain {{&lit}} and nothing else. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have a little confession to make. I think I created this entry before I became a registered user. Donnanz (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Question: Is stone wall a legitimate alternative spelling of the verb, stonewall? I found: 2008, Hans Erickson, Spectrum of Greed, page 18: "If he stone walled at any of the initial points of the negotiations, it would essentially be over, he felt". If more uses like this exist, I would keep the title as an alternative spelling of, and turn the wall-made-of-stone entry into an {{&lit}}. bd2412 T 16:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Update. I found 2011, Leigh Ashton, ISell: Unlock Your Winning Sales Mindset, page 72: "You will stone wall ideas if they don't make sense to you and others may perceive you as difficult in these situations".
  • I have also added an adjective sense to stonewalled, since I am finding many references to stonewalled gardens, stonewalled paths, etc. bd2412 T 16:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Donnanz and Renard. Purplebackpack89 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I've cited the "wall made of stone" sense of stonewall, so WT:COALMINE applies. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  Even if it does, COALMINE says nothing about including the relevant sense twice, which is what is being proposed by the keepers. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  @User:Renard Migrant: Twice? stone wall? Please check. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  Whoops, apologies. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)