Talk:HIV virus

RFD discussion: September–December 2017

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.

---

HIV virus

Even though the word "virus" repeats the meaning of "V" in "HIV", I would regard this as SoP. After all, you can't say "H.I. virus". Equinox ◑ 15:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

RAS syndrome by itself doesn't constitute a reason for deletion. What matters is if the phrase is attested, not prescriptive grammar. I doubt one would nominate PIN number or UPC code for the same reason. Nardog (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about prescriptiveness, or "HIV virus" being somehow "wrong". It's about it being sum of parts, like "common cold + virus". Equinox ◑ 13:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Is adding "virus" to the end of what is already the name of a virus a common practice? If not (and if "HIV virus" is still attested), I don't see why it would be considered SoP. Nardog (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. We are not entirely consistent in treatment of terms of similar structure apple tree, oak tree, pine tree, cherry tree, ash tree, fruit tree, almond tree, chestnut tree, plane tree; crabapple tree, elm tree, maple tree, beech tree, willow tree, peach tree, apricot tree, hawthorn tree, birch tree, black birch tree, sycamore tree, red oak tree, white oak tree, London plane tree, Japanese maple tree, sycamore maple tree, swamp oak tree. These combinations would appear to be a set that is indefinitely expandable. Other than some being more common than others, I see little to distinguish them. Some we might keep based on WT:COALMINE-type evidence, but I doubt there is any attestation of HIVvirus or HIVVirus, though there may be of HIVirus. DCDuring (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My inclination is to delete this as SOP, per nom, but as DCDuring notes we are not consistent in our treatment of pleonasms; we have PIN number. - -sche (discuss) 05:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

One potential way we can adopt to distinguish compounds worth including from sums of parts, in addition to WT:COALMINE, is to see if the phrase is pronounced with primary stress on the first word. That would justify PIN number. Nardog (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is not that easy for us to get attestation of pronunciations of the same quality as our citations.

It occurred to me that many people now define HIV as "a disease ...". If so, it may be that HIV virus means "the virus [which many others call HIV] that causes the disease HIV [which many call AIDS]". I have not yet found a dictionary that recognizes that definition, but the common expression "How did he get HIV" (NOT "How did he get the HIV") is suggestive that people think that way. That would be an inheritance of the dual medical-type definitions of virus. What is more than suggestive is the large number of raw Google Books hits for "HIV is a disease". DCDuring (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep - as per PIN number, and the various trees; pleonasms like these are not SOP, they are more than their sum of parts.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - This remind me of English ATM machine, Korean ATM기 (ATMgi) and Mandarin ATM機／ATM机 (ēi-tì-áimu jī). Dokurrat (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep As an example, I use 'PIN number' even though I know that the "N" stands for number and it could be considered incorrect by some. Part of the reason I feel able to use it is because it has entered general usage - the fact that it has is useful information for Wiktionary users. John Cross (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)