Talk:lower lip

RFD discussion: May–September 2019

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.

---

lower lip

A translation hub but with one language.2600:1000:B117:DF86:1D02:6C1F:C3D2:C9BC 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Now with eight.  --Lambiam 12:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep: the current translations don't qualify, per WT:THUB: "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is:

• a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term;
• a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term".

That said, I think the entry is still rather useful. Canonicalization (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have upper lip too Leasnam (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't think of any sophisticated arguments to keep this apart from it being incredibly useful, along with upper lip. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep. It occurs also in the form bottom lip - I am sure I have heard "Don't trip over your bottom lip" when someone is pouting. DonnanZ (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed because the entry has now more translations. Fay Freak (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Reopened: closures should be based on consensus or its lack, not on erroneous assessment of the substance of the discussion. To wit, which are the translations that meet the current tentative policy of WT:THUB? Czech spodní ret does not count toward THUB, nor does German Unterlippe. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It is still useful nonetheless. DonnanZ (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Every single one qualifies, including the Czech, because one would otherwise not know if it is called like that in Czech or somehow differently, i.e. if for example a certain compound or idiomatic expression or a special term is used instead of what is now mentioned: the table is there to tell how it’s called. If you think it its excluded under “a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term” this is wrong because this is counterbalanced. It all meets the general idea “collocation that is useful for hosting translations” very well.

Also the assessment is not erroneous. OP said it is one translation, now it is twenty-one. I think you do not understand WT:THUB, Dan Polansky. If you have such criteria we can even delete little brother. Fay Freak (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Czech spodní ret is "a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term"; this could indeed by overriden since the whole policy is tentative, but that is for discussion. And since it is for discussion and is not cut and dry (unambigously clear), one's assessment cannot lead to closure. In such a case, a closure can only be made based on detecting consensus, and not on the substance of the matter, since otherwise the closer would act as if they were more qualified than other discussion participants to assess the substance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)