| | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' <{{#switch:|term|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}} class="latinx" {{#if:|lang="{{{lang}}}"}}>[[User:Widsith|Ƿidsiþ]]</{{#switch:|term|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}}> 06:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC). I strongly oppose this. The existence of compounds written together is an excellent sign that they are thought of as a single idiomatic unit. It's crucial for a good dictionary to include important compounds and we already have too few ways of supporting that under CFI. | | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' <{{#switch:|term|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}} class="latinx" {{#if:|lang="{{{lang}}}"}}>[[User:Widsith|Ƿidsiþ]]</{{#switch:|term|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}}> 06:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC). I strongly oppose this. The existence of compounds written together is an excellent sign that they are thought of as a single idiomatic unit. It's crucial for a good dictionary to include important compounds and we already have too few ways of supporting that under CFI. |
| | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I'm totally against the categorical exclusion of SOP content. I even believe that cleanly tagged (maybe with {{temp|head|en|SOP}}) SOP entries would not be harmful. In fact regular form-of entries could be regarded as SOP, and most printed dictionaries have no entries for them, but we have a overwhelmingly huge number included. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I'm totally against the categorical exclusion of SOP content. I even believe that cleanly tagged (maybe with {{temp|head|en|SOP}}) SOP entries would not be harmful. In fact regular form-of entries could be regarded as SOP, and most printed dictionaries have no entries for them, but we have a overwhelmingly huge number included. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' [[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I don't see any problem that removing WT:COALMINE would solve. To me, the closed form, the open form and the hyphenated form of a compound are alternative forms of a single word, as it were; I see no point in including one of these forms while excluding others. If this tri-word is only represented as "compoundword" rather than also as "compound word" and compound-word", and if "compound word" is more common, then I think it is represented on the wrong lemma, a secondary lemma, as it were. However, typographic errors should not count toward attestation of a vanishingly rare closed form. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC) |
