Category talk:English adjective-noun compound nouns

RFD discussion: April 2022–August 2023

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.

---

Category:English adjective-noun compound nouns

Do we need this? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete, nonstandard and unneeded category. —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Premature deletion. Only two persons had been involved in the process. What makes this category non-standard? Why is non-standardness a relevant criterion? DCDuring (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha, @Benwing2 can we get this undeleted please? And @Svartava, you can't vote "delete" and then close the RFD in the same breath, that violates the RFD guidelines. AG202 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Restored pending further discussion, seeing that consensus has not been reached. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd also want to keep this category, but unfortunately it seems that it's been wiped? Unsure where the entries for it were. AG202 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, it is technically possible to find the entries that had the categorization (probably hard categorization) removed, but it is beyond my skills. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me a desirable category that, with other similar categories would lead to interesting and useful demographic-type information about our multiword entries. It would also speed some searches involving multiword entries. Such searches can be useful for maintenance purposes and achieving more consistency in classes of entries. DCDuring (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It was created recently AFAICT. I'm not sure it was ever populated very much. One could easily, but tediously, use Category:English compound nouns to populate it. DCDuring (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: {{compound}} supports |pos1= etc. but it is in practice never used because it looks like this: suchen (“to search”, verb) +‎ Baum (“tree”, noun) — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Not that ugly to me. But we could suppress the PoS display and retain the categorization. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I marked it for deletion as a month had already passed from the request for deletion. As it has been emptied, I also think it meets a speedy deletion criterion; further, I don't believe there is much point keeping a much incomplete category like this one. —Svārtava (talk) • 11:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No longer empty. BTW, what makes this category non-standard? And, since when are categories removed for being non-standard? Removing "non-standard" categories seems like a great way to suppress any kind of experimentation and innovation. Was the assertion that the category was unneeded anything more than one of personal taste? It was not supported by any particular facts or reasoning. DCDuring (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I was unaware of Category:Verb-noun compounds by language (as Imetsia pointed out below)... striking my delete vote. —Svārtava (talk) • 14:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing about this category is non-standard, given that we have verb-noun compound categories for English as well as for other languages. Imetsia (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't it be moved to Category:English adjective-noun compounds nouns, just so that it follows the naming convention of the verb-noun compound categories? Pinging editors active in this discussion: @AG202, Fytcha, DCDuring, Svartava. Imetsia (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That would seem like a way of losing information, even though the information is mostly recoverable by searching for the intersection of English nouns and English adjective-noun compounds. It might be possible for an adjective-noun derivative to only be attestable as a PoS other than noun. DCDuring (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep it is a useful category - says a researcher who is happy it exists. No action in over a year. I suggest the RFD be removed. --Janwo (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

RFD-kept—stale discussion and only one person unambiguously supported deletion, no need to drag it out forever. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)