Deletion debate
edit
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Not suffixes. Simply (deprecated template usage) going and (deprecated template usage) goer used as the second half of various compounds. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Delete. Equinox ◑ 16:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect both. Harmless, and someone might look it up with the preceding hyphen. bd2412 T 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note also that -goers should receive the same treatment as the singular form. bd2412 T 19:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not harmless because it will make people think it's a legitimate "suffix" whereas it's really just a word that is sometimes joined without a hyphen. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, redirecting [[-goer]] to [[goer]] may discourage a spurious re-entry of [[-goer]]. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeeees, but that's like painting a wall you'd rather was left blank purely because the vandals are more likely to leave it alone that way. It's a workaround rather than an ideal. I don't want to make a huge deal of this; just saying that having needless redirection is likely to validate the practice and lead to misuse of redirects. Equinox ◑ 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's more like putting up an arrow and a do-not-enter sign to prevent people from going the wrong way on a one-way street. If we don't we just have to clean up the wreckage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- True. But I would say that most (i.e. >50%) of new visitors who do anything on Wikt are the ones who come and create a new term that is made up, either their local micro-slang, or something they've just made up alone, or some kind of promotional term related to their Web site. Although I think I understand your argument, there is a point where we have to stop catering to mistakes and actively forbid them, and I'd rather err on the side of conservatism. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would support the redirect. I don't understand what you mean by "lead to misuse of redirects". Have we got some rules I don't know about? This is precisely the kind of entry that needs a redirect. It serves to demonstrate to a user that the hyphenated form is not a true suffix (something I did not realise myself, as you will have noticed!). Also, if this entry is going to disappear, then the information at goer should be amplified to explain this use clearly, and the usex should be an unhyphenated example. -- ALGRIF talk 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. —RuakhTALK 18:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would support the redirect. I don't understand what you mean by "lead to misuse of redirects". Have we got some rules I don't know about? This is precisely the kind of entry that needs a redirect. It serves to demonstrate to a user that the hyphenated form is not a true suffix (something I did not realise myself, as you will have noticed!). Also, if this entry is going to disappear, then the information at goer should be amplified to explain this use clearly, and the usex should be an unhyphenated example. -- ALGRIF talk 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- True. But I would say that most (i.e. >50%) of new visitors who do anything on Wikt are the ones who come and create a new term that is made up, either their local micro-slang, or something they've just made up alone, or some kind of promotional term related to their Web site. Although I think I understand your argument, there is a point where we have to stop catering to mistakes and actively forbid them, and I'd rather err on the side of conservatism. Equinox ◑ 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's more like putting up an arrow and a do-not-enter sign to prevent people from going the wrong way on a one-way street. If we don't we just have to clean up the wreckage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeeees, but that's like painting a wall you'd rather was left blank purely because the vandals are more likely to leave it alone that way. It's a workaround rather than an ideal. I don't want to make a huge deal of this; just saying that having needless redirection is likely to validate the practice and lead to misuse of redirects. Equinox ◑ 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, redirecting [[-goer]] to [[goer]] may discourage a spurious re-entry of [[-goer]]. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted; kept only in the form of redirections. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)