The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
It seems "chess piece" to me. --Daniel. 04:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- It would be a shame to delete it IMO, but I don't see this meeting our CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- keep - chesspiece is valid, so this would pass under the criteria the name of which I've forgotten. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We'll have to see about that. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- (Sigh.) Keep per WT:COALMINE.—msh210℠ 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this lame entry. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep, and I don't know why it is thought of as "lame". The term has a particular meaning to the game of chess, i.e. one of the tokens used to play the game and not a timekeeping device, medal, etc.
- Also, "chess piece" has more entries in both Google and Google Books than "chesspiece", so I think chesspiece should be just an alt spelling of chess piece. Actually I had never seen the single word spelling "chesspiece" until now! Facts707 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Lameness" is just subjective. It isn't and shouldn't be a formal criterion for excluding. Both "chesspiece" and "chess piece" are compositional and thus lame, IMO. I'm taking a monolingual perspective. Obviously they are relevant for translations. I've added or worked on many a "lame" entry, but prefer to work on others. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, if chess piece is not significantly more common then WT:COALMINE, q.v., doesn't apply.—msh210℠ 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)