The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
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)
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)