Talk:infectious disease specialist
Latest comment: 3 years ago by PUC in topic RFD discussion: April–June 2020
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.
Probably added as a translation hub. SOP. --Vitoscots (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WT:THUB, supported by Czech infektolog and German Infektiologe. I expect more languages to be added. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Override THUB in this instance and delete, too SOP to my taste. PUC – 13:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- WT:THUB expressly allows override. Let me note, though, that THUB is designed to override SOP considerations with another keeping rationale, and that degree to which something is or is not SOP does not in any way lead any meaningful input into the rationale. We cannot keep all SOP terms so we need something like the SOP-exclusion policy; THUB states a rationale for lexicographical value of SOP terms. Let me also note that it was not entirely straightfoward for me to discover "infectious disease specialist" as the good translation; I started with infectiologist, noted that it is rare and started to look for a really common term, and then found it. I then stored results of my lexicographical effort in a multi-lingual lexicographical database, the English Wiktionary, for me, and so that people who do not want to do lexicography can find answers to lexicographical questions. Makes sense? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I don't put as much stock in statistics as you do, however. There can be a certain degree of randomness to them, and it seems to me that that's the case here. It being more common doesn't make it a lexical unit. If native speakers disagree and do feel that it's a "thing", though, that's something else. You'll no doubt disagree with me and say that objective data should always trump feelings, but IMO it's very much wrong to think like that in linguistic matters. PUC – 13:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- The statistics are completely clear: infectious disease specialist, infectious disease doctor, infection specialist, infectiologist, infectologist at Google Ngram Viewer; infectiologist, infectologist are not found in the Ngrams at all. Statistical phenomena are subject to chance variation, and a proper statistical analysis accounts for that. Chance variation does not render statistical analyses worthless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I don't put as much stock in statistics as you do, however. There can be a certain degree of randomness to them, and it seems to me that that's the case here. It being more common doesn't make it a lexical unit. If native speakers disagree and do feel that it's a "thing", though, that's something else. You'll no doubt disagree with me and say that objective data should always trump feelings, but IMO it's very much wrong to think like that in linguistic matters. PUC – 13:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- WT:THUB expressly allows override. Let me note, though, that THUB is designed to override SOP considerations with another keeping rationale, and that degree to which something is or is not SOP does not in any way lead any meaningful input into the rationale. We cannot keep all SOP terms so we need something like the SOP-exclusion policy; THUB states a rationale for lexicographical value of SOP terms. Let me also note that it was not entirely straightfoward for me to discover "infectious disease specialist" as the good translation; I started with infectiologist, noted that it is rare and started to look for a really common term, and then found it. I then stored results of my lexicographical effort in a multi-lingual lexicographical database, the English Wiktionary, for me, and so that people who do not want to do lexicography can find answers to lexicographical questions. Makes sense? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Put the translations at the rarer but extant term and use that as the translation hub. - TheDaveRoss 12:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- This kind of reasoning is addressed by WT:THUB as follows: "The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term: the existence of Anglistics, which is rare, does not disqualify English studies." --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, as the guidelines at WT:THUB suggest using the commonest English phrase even if it is longer. —Soap— 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, somewhat reluctantly, per WT:THUB. Imetsia (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as thub — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus for deletion. PUC – 09:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)