Talk:Metroid-like
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Theknightwho in topic RFD discussion: August–November 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.
Equinox ◑ 08:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WT:COALMINE, as Metroidlike is easily attestable. Binarystep (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- You cannot say "keep" based on a red link. You must create it in order to argue from it. Equinox ◑ 10:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Created and cited Metroidlike, though it's a noun rather than an adjective. That said, I noticed at least one of the quotes on Citations:Metroid-like clearly uses it as a noun, and the other two cites read as potentially ambiguous (compare phrases like "an RPG structure" or "an RPG adventure"), which, combined with the term being a snowclone of roguelike, leads me to believe that Metroid-like has the wrong POS. Binarystep (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I vote to repeal COALMINE, since it is mainly used to allow typos, scannos, and nonces to justify the inclusion of other typos, scannos, and nonces. - TheDaveRoss 12:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- What makes Metroidlike a typo, scanno, or nonce, and why isn't that the case for equivalent terms like roguelike or Tetrislike? Binarystep (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- This does, and this, roguelike is widely used and has been for many years, hardly anyone has ever used Metroidlike or Metroid-like. It is the -like suffix which is doing all of the work, I am guessing you could find at least three examples of someone using that suffix with every major video game, but those are exactly what nonces are, words created ad hoc for a purpose. It takes a lot of usage from a lot of people for a word to move from nonce (even a repeated nonce) to an actual English language term. - TheDaveRoss 12:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @TheDaveRoss: repealing COALMINE would have zero effect on the inclusion of Metroidlike, which is an attested word, by any competent definition of the word, "word" (and certainly by our own definition and precedents). By its terms, COALMINE only applies to legitimate alternative spellings (which we include even if they are SOP), and would apply as readily to police man or down-turn. bd2412 T 07:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are 0 CFI compliant cites provided for Metroidlike. - TheDaveRoss 13:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- The criteria changed earlier this year. I don't see any glaring issues with the cites provided. Theknightwho (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- There was a two week discussion which resulted in Twitter being an allowed source? Are we allowing hashtags now? - TheDaveRoss 14:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't realised that language can't develop online. At this point, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, because the objections amount to IDONTLIKEIT. Theknightwho (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dismissing the opinions of anyone you disagree with is certainly the best way to come to consensus. I didn't argue that language cannot develop online, that is a stupid line of reasoning, language can develop anywhere people communicate. I contend that: 1. this "word" is not used widely enough to be included in this dictionary; and 2. while the CFI was amended to allow some additional online sources there are constraints on which sources are allowed, and as far as I am aware Twitter has not been "approved". I may be wrong, it shouldn't be hard to prove that I am if I am. None of that is "IDONTLIKEIT", try assuming good faith instead of dismissing anything which doesn't match your point of view. - TheDaveRoss 15:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I gave a flippant response to a flippant remark. The consensus of this discussion is generally that the terms have been cited, and there is precedent for accepting these kinds of cites where they are necessary (including Twitter). Besides, failing it on the grounds that the cites don't meet CFI when your real reasoning is that the term isn't widely used enough (based on your general impression) is bad faith, as it's throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Theknightwho (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry if my questions came off as flippant, they were genuine. You linked the update vote for the CFI which included a requirement that new sources have a two week discussion and a consensus for acceptance, Twitter seems like it would be one of the first out of the gate for such a discussion, and I wouldn't be shocked if I missed that discussion. Have we had the discussion which has moved Twitter into the list with UseNet for accepted online sources? Similarly, you saw no issues with the citations provided, at least one of them is a hashtag-term. I don't think we should be including hashtag-terms, either as citations or as distinct terms, but has there been a resolution that such "usage" is acceptable as a citation? Or as an entry?
- I also don't think I am moving the goalposts here, there is a discussion about COALMINE and there is a discussion about Metroidlike. I don't think the discussion around Metroidlike has reached a consensus, Equinox, Soap, Fytcha, and Thartan have voted to delete; Binarystep, WordyAndNerdy and BD2412 have voted to keep largely based on COALMINE. I suppose there are some tacit votes (mine and yours, for two). The COALMINE discussion is up in the air about whether the citations provided for either the supporting term (Metroidlike) or the nominated term (Metroid-like) are in agreement about part of speech, are supported per CFI, etc.
- The fact that the term is not really widely used is a factor in COALMINE, because the supporting term (Metroidlike) must actually be demonstrably in use in order for the multi-word variant to be able to leverage it. - TheDaveRoss 16:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I gave a flippant response to a flippant remark. The consensus of this discussion is generally that the terms have been cited, and there is precedent for accepting these kinds of cites where they are necessary (including Twitter). Besides, failing it on the grounds that the cites don't meet CFI when your real reasoning is that the term isn't widely used enough (based on your general impression) is bad faith, as it's throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Theknightwho (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dismissing the opinions of anyone you disagree with is certainly the best way to come to consensus. I didn't argue that language cannot develop online, that is a stupid line of reasoning, language can develop anywhere people communicate. I contend that: 1. this "word" is not used widely enough to be included in this dictionary; and 2. while the CFI was amended to allow some additional online sources there are constraints on which sources are allowed, and as far as I am aware Twitter has not been "approved". I may be wrong, it shouldn't be hard to prove that I am if I am. None of that is "IDONTLIKEIT", try assuming good faith instead of dismissing anything which doesn't match your point of view. - TheDaveRoss 15:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- I hadn't realised that language can't develop online. At this point, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, because the objections amount to IDONTLIKEIT. Theknightwho (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- There was a two week discussion which resulted in Twitter being an allowed source? Are we allowing hashtags now? - TheDaveRoss 14:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- The criteria changed earlier this year. I don't see any glaring issues with the cites provided. Theknightwho (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are 0 CFI compliant cites provided for Metroidlike. - TheDaveRoss 13:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @TheDaveRoss: repealing COALMINE would have zero effect on the inclusion of Metroidlike, which is an attested word, by any competent definition of the word, "word" (and certainly by our own definition and precedents). By its terms, COALMINE only applies to legitimate alternative spellings (which we include even if they are SOP), and would apply as readily to police man or down-turn. bd2412 T 07:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- This does, and this, roguelike is widely used and has been for many years, hardly anyone has ever used Metroidlike or Metroid-like. It is the -like suffix which is doing all of the work, I am guessing you could find at least three examples of someone using that suffix with every major video game, but those are exactly what nonces are, words created ad hoc for a purpose. It takes a lot of usage from a lot of people for a word to move from nonce (even a repeated nonce) to an actual English language term. - TheDaveRoss 12:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- What makes Metroidlike a typo, scanno, or nonce, and why isn't that the case for equivalent terms like roguelike or Tetrislike? Binarystep (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- You have attested Metroidlike as a noun, but we have Metroid-like as an adjective. 98.170.164.88 06:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Of the three citations given for Metroid-like, one is a noun, and the other two are ambiguous. If necessary, though, I could probably find adjectival uses of Metroidlike (one is already on Citations:Metroidlike), and/or more nominal uses of Metroid-like. The term does appear to be far more common as a noun than an adjective, though, presumably because it's based on roguelike. Binarystep (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- You cannot say "keep" based on a red link. You must create it in order to argue from it. Equinox ◑ 10:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just from a quick Google search, most hits for the word Metroidlike, with or without hyphen (since google just squishes them together anyway) are closely juxtaposed with the more established term Metroidvania, e.g. "Metroidvania, or if youre a purist, Metroidlike". The term may have been patterned after roguelike, another well-known term, but there are probably many people nowadays who know what a roguelike game is but have never played or even heard of the original game Rogue. Also I'd say that roguelike has evolved, perhaps precisely because of the many people using it who have not played the original game, whereas Metroidlike will always be tied to whatever is happening in the Metroid game series at the time. I'd actually have to lean delete on this. —Soap— 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I found plenty of citations that never used the term Metroidvania, suggesting that the reader was expected to already know what a Metroidlike is. As for the term being too closely tied to the Metroid series, that has never been a valid reason for deletion, as evidenced by Talk:everypony and the entirety of Category:English fandom slang. Fandom terms are allowed as long as they didn't originate from the works in question. Binarystep (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes COALMINE and the fact this can also be used as a noun lends it a low-level idiomaticity (-like is not a standard suffix in constructing nouns). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete Metroidlike as a rare misspelling (per the arguments above) and thendelete Metroid-like as SOP. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)- @Fytcha It's attested as a noun. I'm pretty sure we need to keep that sense. I also don't see how this is a rare misspelling. TheDaveRoss made the argument that Metroid-like and Metroidlike are both rare. I'm pretty certain that the new rare misspellings rule was not intended to be used that way, as it's supposed to be how rare the misspelling is relative to the term. Theknightwho (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Right, I didn't notice that Metroidlike and Metroid-like are of different parts of speech. But in that case, coalmine doesn't apply unless Metroidlike can also be cited as an adjective (doesn't seem likely from a cursory glance, the only valid quotation is already found on Citations:Metroid-like). Sidenote: "new rare misspellings rule" The policy that only common misspellings may be included was also present in the previous text. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above, Metroid-like is probably a noun as well. Of the three citations provided, one is clearly a noun, and the other two are ambiguous at best (compare phrases like "an RPG structure" or "an RPG adventure", neither of which make RPG an adjective). Binarystep (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: Right, I didn't notice that Metroidlike and Metroid-like are of different parts of speech. But in that case, coalmine doesn't apply unless Metroidlike can also be cited as an adjective (doesn't seem likely from a cursory glance, the only valid quotation is already found on Citations:Metroid-like). Sidenote: "new rare misspellings rule" The policy that only common misspellings may be included was also present in the previous text. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Fytcha It's attested as a noun. I'm pretty sure we need to keep that sense. I also don't see how this is a rare misspelling. TheDaveRoss made the argument that Metroid-like and Metroidlike are both rare. I'm pretty certain that the new rare misspellings rule was not intended to be used that way, as it's supposed to be how rare the misspelling is relative to the term. Theknightwho (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Sum of parts. I also mostly agree with the arguments made by Soap above. Tharthan (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, as a word. bd2412 T 07:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Abstain. WT:COALMINE says: "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion;". Thus, Metroid-like needs to be significantly more common than Metroidlike. Looking at Metroid-like, Metroidlike at Google Ngram Viewer, neither of the two is found, so we cannot tell which of them is more common. google:"Metroid-like" yields 101 hits while google:"Metroidlike" yields 83 hits, which would meet the significantly more common requirement, but unlike GNV, Google search is not designed for statistical use, and not all these uses are English uses. Citations:Metroid-like contains two adjectival uses and one noun use; we do not have 3 adjectival uses either. All the evidence from Metroidlike is from Twitter; where is the discussion that consensually approved Twitter? Neither Metroid-like nor Metroidlike meet WT:ATTEST as before the vote that opened the floodgates. The evidence available is not very compelling for COALMINE to apply; compare the clear coal mine,(coalmine*10) at Google Ngram Viewer. As it stands, Metroid-like could also be RFVed to ask for the 3rd adjectival attesting quotation or 2 additional noun quotations. If the floodgate-vote were not approved (I would have opposed I guess), both could be deleted as unattested, case closed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)- If Metroidlike is successfully nominated for deletion, then this would follow, logically. Until that happens, it's clearly an alternative spelling of a single word. bd2412 T 05:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as a single word. One has to note that -like is a suffix; this is not Metroid + - + word like. For single words, the requirement of idiomaticity does not apply, per WT:CFI's "including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic". Whether COALMINE applies or not is moot. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Including hyphenated prefixed words as single words. The word is boring, but so are most Xlike words for various X, at least for humans who know -like suffix. There is no difficulty in breaking childlike into child and -like for a human; the cases where there is any breaking ambiguity are rare. That explains why most of our Xlike entries are not in dictionaries; they have better things to do than documenting such trivia. But we are into all words in all languages, boring or not. (And yes, most nonX words are utterly boring, as are Xness words.) If the amount of quotations is in question and their sources, that would be for RFV I guess; the sources of the quotations are copy edited, to say the least. Also, I feel Metroid-like is an easy target since the quotations are not from traditional sources and it is part of gaming; why not attack apple-like, baklava-like, ball-like, Aesop-like, Arizona-like, California-like, calypso-like, candida-like, chameleon-like, etc. as SOP? One only has to check the category to find more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- If Metroidlike is successfully nominated for deletion, then this would follow, logically. Until that happens, it's clearly an alternative spelling of a single word. bd2412 T 05:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
RFD-kept: 4 keeps, 4 deletes. If I count Dave Ross as pro-delete, we get 5 deletes. Still no 2/3-supermajority consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)- That is not a legitimate basis for closing a discussion, as your previous attempt to impose the requirement for a 2/3 supermajority failed. Theknightwho (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- 2/3 is the default threshold for RFD consensus per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes. In the above discussion, I found nothing to override that threshold. Thus, the closure seems in keeping with the near-unanimously passed vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that Option 2 passed, which means that deciding solely on the basis of there being no supermajority is illegitimate. Theknightwho (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 passed, setting the default threshold to 2/3, and allowing other considerations than tallying to play a role. The closure "can take into account considerations other than pure tallying", but does not have to. It is therefore legitimate for the closer to go by the default threshold unless there is something egregious in the discussion being closed. Anyone can check and unclose the discussion if they find a specific problem with the votes cast in the RFD. In this RFD, all keeps referred to specific policy wording, including the general-rule protection for single words and to COALMINE. Someone should ideally reclose this unless they find an overriding concern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- I knew the ‘not set in stone’ clause would lead to confusion and disagreement which is why I abstained on that option but I see no reason why the policy regarding the 2/3rds ratio should be abandoned in this instance. To put it another way, the quality of the stone is sufficient for it to be etched on and I hereby do the etching:- RFD-kept. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Overlordnat1 While I agree with your (and Dan's) assessment of the vote count and the lack of consensus to delete, the significant issue is that half of the keep votes cited COALMINE, yet the single-word term does not contain a matching sense to the hyphenated term. I don't see how COALMINE applies if the single-word term is a noun and the hyphenated term is an adjective. Further, the single-word term is only cited using Twitter, which (despite Dan's assertion to the contrary) is still of dubious credibility with regards to attestation, especially when Twitter is the only source of cites. The reason I didn't close this as "kept" when I was looking for closures recently is that this doesn't feel resolved in a satisfactory way. - TheDaveRoss 12:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is precisely why I didn't want it to be closed, as there was zero acknowledgment of the outstanding difficulties. I am not making a judgment either way on whether we should keep this (at least, not in this comment), but I do not think that this particular nomination has been satisfactorily resolved. The inherent responsibility that comes with setting a soft baseline for consensus is that those closing discussions will do so in a way that isn't completely one-sided. Otherwise, it is an abuse of process. Theknightwho (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to dismiss all oppose votes as ignoring "if it is a single word or it is idiomatic"? By counting the votes, I took no side argument-wise. In terms of arguments, the keeping side is the clear winner, by my assessment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- No. You are allowed to forestall closure if the outcome is unclear, or if there is ongoing discussion which might impact the outcome. For my part I don't think you were wrong to close this discussion, my statement above was merely explaining why I chose not to close it when I looked at it a day or two before. I would still like to hear from the COALMINErs to see if they are happy with applying COALMINE here, when at present it doesn't seem to apply. Two of those votes are more-or-less in the "keep literally everything" camp, but the others may be willing to discuss. - TheDaveRoss 15:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Overlordnat1 While I agree with your (and Dan's) assessment of the vote count and the lack of consensus to delete, the significant issue is that half of the keep votes cited COALMINE, yet the single-word term does not contain a matching sense to the hyphenated term. I don't see how COALMINE applies if the single-word term is a noun and the hyphenated term is an adjective. Further, the single-word term is only cited using Twitter, which (despite Dan's assertion to the contrary) is still of dubious credibility with regards to attestation, especially when Twitter is the only source of cites. The reason I didn't close this as "kept" when I was looking for closures recently is that this doesn't feel resolved in a satisfactory way. - TheDaveRoss 12:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- I knew the ‘not set in stone’ clause would lead to confusion and disagreement which is why I abstained on that option but I see no reason why the policy regarding the 2/3rds ratio should be abandoned in this instance. To put it another way, the quality of the stone is sufficient for it to be etched on and I hereby do the etching:- RFD-kept. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 passed, setting the default threshold to 2/3, and allowing other considerations than tallying to play a role. The closure "can take into account considerations other than pure tallying", but does not have to. It is therefore legitimate for the closer to go by the default threshold unless there is something egregious in the discussion being closed. Anyone can check and unclose the discussion if they find a specific problem with the votes cast in the RFD. In this RFD, all keeps referred to specific policy wording, including the general-rule protection for single words and to COALMINE. Someone should ideally reclose this unless they find an overriding concern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that Option 2 passed, which means that deciding solely on the basis of there being no supermajority is illegitimate. Theknightwho (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- 2/3 is the default threshold for RFD consensus per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes. In the above discussion, I found nothing to override that threshold. Thus, the closure seems in keeping with the near-unanimously passed vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is not a legitimate basis for closing a discussion, as your previous attempt to impose the requirement for a 2/3 supermajority failed. Theknightwho (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Let me also point out that determination of consensus in BP is the same as in RFD per the passed vote. The whole strength-of-argument business is for the most part a patent absurdity: if the closer should determine consensus based on arguments, then those 60% who supported Twitter in BP should now claim they do have consensus for Twitter since their arguments are the strong ones. It is only the 2/3 threshold that prevents the 60% Twitter-supporters from doing so, not the strength of the arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is possible to evaluate ideas from perspectives other than your own, and it is practically mandatory to do so when doing closures. You should try it sometime. Theknightwho (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Let me also point out that determination of consensus in BP is the same as in RFD per the passed vote. The whole strength-of-argument business is for the most part a patent absurdity: if the closer should determine consensus based on arguments, then those 60% who supported Twitter in BP should now claim they do have consensus for Twitter since their arguments are the strong ones. It is only the 2/3 threshold that prevents the 60% Twitter-supporters from doing so, not the strength of the arguments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that anyone on the numerically losing side of an argument will inevitable think things aren’t ‘set in stone’, whether it’s due to the interpretation of COALMINE or something else. However, if the consensus is that discussion and voting should continue on this request, then I’ll vote weak keep. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- My consistent view throughout the discussion was that the entry should be kept. The issue is that there is a major issue still outstanding, not that I have sour grapes. Theknightwho (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- It would be nice if this kind of this kind of thing had specific explanations like Dickensian, so it would be useful to someone unfamiliar with Metroid. Drapetomanic (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)