Talk:high-quality

Deletion discussion

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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

high-quality

Sum of parts? If OK, should the comparative and superlative really lose the hyphen? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Single word. Ƿidsiþ 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, two words connected with a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Check here for instance. Ƿidsiþ 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a "Word Count Tool". I asked it about A high-quality, never-been-married, fully marriage-eligible bachelor. and was told "6".​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it's six words. What your point? Ƿidsiþ 07:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In fairness Widsith, I think you're well capable of thinking for yourself. Just because the OED says anything with a hyphen in is a single word, you don't have to believe them. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me – the OED doesn't say anything on the subject one way or another. But it's a well-established convention in journalism and publishing that two (or more) words linked with a hyphen are counted as single words. Ƿidsiþ 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes counted as a single word, that's mathematics. Presumably in terms of journalism 5/6 is a single word too, no? As it contains no spaces. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

By the expansive logic often expressed here, this entry might be required because the trio low-quality, average-quality, and high-quality is strongly preferred over other ways of expressing the same notion at least in some context. For example, low-grade, medium-grade, and high-grade are not normally applied to most consumer goods.

But I don't see how someone trying to prepare a speech or write something could actually find the appropriate entry in English Wiktionary. If someone could explain that, I might accept such entries, as we seem to have become a translating dictionary rather than a monolingual one. In a translating dictionary, preferred collocations, even though completely transparent and trivial from the point-of-view of a decoder, would seem to be need to be included provided they are findable.

Ergo, Delete DCDuring TALK 13:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, for example I am currently reading Spenser and he never refers to anything as ‘high-quality’. So when did this word start being used? In what contexts? This is what a good dictionary shows. ((deprecated template usage) high-quality is in the OED, by the way, and their first citation is not until 1910.) Ƿidsiþ 17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@Widsith: To which comment were you directing the comment immediately above?

The argument made would apply to any arbitrary sequence of terms. For example, preferred sound sequences could change so free combinations of word might change in relative frequency, ie not be 100% free. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand that sentence. I thought you were originally asking what the value of this entry is, and I was giving you some reasons why it might be valuable. At any rate there are plenty of things I would like to know about this term, and I expect a dictionary to tell me. The OED includes it, so why do we think it's beneath us exactly? Ƿidsiþ 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep as it fits our generally inclusionist line and it is enough of a word for OED. Following the same type of argumentation as was used with "bath towel" above (bath towel is not a towel to wipe the bath), "high quality" should be kept, because it's not the quality of being tall. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I now agree - keep. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Hekaheka Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Now it's the high-quality entry it is for the purposes of translation, and no one logged what it was meant to be used for when it was totally-wrong.--Riverstogo (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Kept --ElisaVan (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)