Talk:heat-resistant

RFD discussion: September–November 2021

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

heat-resistant

--4SnavaA (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. You can't delete 'em all. This is a relatively common word, and the page has translations, a quotation, and now lemming references. DonnanZ (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've been here since 2008 and the Pokémon logic "you can't delete 'em all" is the single worst argument I've ever heard. Shame on you. Equinox ◑ 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  LMFAO. --{{victar|talk}} 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue about Pokémon logic, so that comment means nothing to me. DonnanZ (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WT:COALMINE: I created heatresistant. J3133 (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, we shouldn't be forced by SoP issues into resorting to COALMINE as a get-out clause or get out of jail free card. DonnanZ (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. "heatresistant" is arguably a spelling error or misprint anyway. I strongly oppose seeking out these kinds of non-standard closed forms purely in order to invoke the "coalmine" rule. Mihia (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: Why is the closed form a spelling error (if not because you do not like it), according to what rule? J3133 (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• What we have to ask ourselves is: Does 'heat-resistant' mean anything more than 'resistant to heat'? If the answer is no, we should delete it as sum-of parts. You can have literally any "X-resistant" that makes sense, from frost-resistant to oil-resistant to iguana-resistant, and I am not aware of anything that says the SoP policy can be overruled simply because a term is common. The fact that there is "a quotation" is completely irrelevant. However, if there are translations that cannot be constructed by piecing together translations of "heat" and "-resistant" then it can be made a translation hub I guess. Mihia (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a point that all would-be deletionists should bear in mind before slapping an RFD notice on an entry, which is far too easy to do. Editors have gone to the trouble to add translations, and the solitary quote. Both can be added to, of course, given a chance. I add quite a few quotes to entries, and have to double-check every one of them to make sure they are word-perfect. But if the entry is deleted, all that hard work is destroyed too. And you are forgetting the fact that it is considered entry-worthy by other dictionaries. Sadly, I don't think that can be said in support of antibiotic-resistant. DonnanZ (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Quotations are completely irrelevant as a counter to an SoP claim. No one is remotely denying that "heat-resistant" is a common term, or that almost limitless quotations could be found to support it. The same could be said of hot weather or yellow flowers. It is not an argument in support of allowing those entries. On your other point, we agreed that we need not be bound by what other dictionaries do. In any case, the list at https://www.onelook.com/?w=heat-resistant is actually rather short. Mihia (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"we agreed that we need not be bound by what other dictionaries do". Really? You may have agreed, but I never saw any discussion. Where? It sounds rather barmy. DonnanZ (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but we did not agree to be bound, as seen by the failure of this vote. So, in any case, we are not bound by what other dictionaries do.  --Lambiam 09:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I had forgotten that vote, where I supported it. But other dictionaries often contain words and senses we have missed, so it is always useful to add them as references, and a guide. So the failure of that vote doesn't alter my view at all, I will still add dictionary references. But, sadly, there are far too many toxic and negative users who want to delete words like this one. You can't call them editors. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat don't understand the point of dictionary references. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but they in themselves can't support our inclusion of a word, since dictionary entries are mentions not uses. What else are the references for? Telling people that "other dictionaries exist, and you can look up a word in those dictionaries too"? Mihia Not an editor (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: I personally like linking to {{R:Longman}}, which often has audio files for whole sentences / usage examples. Since we don't do that (yet), I see it as added value. PUC – 17:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Mihia. Imetsia (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP.  --Lambiam 09:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This RFD does not apply to heatresistant, which would be kept if heat-resistant is deleted, as it is one word. J3133 (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

For heatresistant, it might be a good idea to check Google Ngrams and see how common it is, in case it is just an uncommon incorrect form or largely due to scannos. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked at this earlier, but I don't trust the Ngrams results for this. Likewise, when I search Google Books I get plenty of supposed hits for "heatresistant" but most of them are spurious, actually turning out to be the hyphenated form, sometimes at end-of-line. In fact, I don't think I have found one genuine one so far (though I am by no means saying that none at all exist; most probably a few do, written by people who cannot spell properly). Mihia (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed this before when looking for unhyphenated versions of compound words. When one looks at Google Books, especially if a work is one of those ugly ones formatted for e-readers (often without pagination), what looks like an unhyphenated form in the search results often turns out to be a hyphenated form. It seems they are using some sort of soft hyphen which doesn't show up in Google search results. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You also find in original printed text words hyphenated as a line break. The dilemma then is which way to go when using it in a quote, if the word could conceivably be hyphenated at the line break anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If a hyphen is at a line break, I don’t consider this as sufficient evidence of an unhyphenated form. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, if considering an entry for a word subjected to a line break, I carry out tests to determine whether the same word is hyphenated (or vice versa) in other sources where there is no line break. DonnanZ (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The only hyphenated form of resistant you can possibly get away with, with this bunch of deletionists, may be non-resistant, and only because nonresistant exists. This shows how crazy SoP policy is. DonnanZ (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I would keep this entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete: SOP; though the translations may be of some value, they don't qualify for a translation hub. PUC – 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong Keep. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

May I ask on what basis? For example, do you not agree that it is sum-of-parts? Mihia (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The term has a synonym and a coordinate term; and the entry has a translation table. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how synonyms and coordinate terms are relevant. You could say that resistant to heat has the same, so should we have an entry for that too? Translations, yes, where part-for-part translations do not exist, closest translations can be listed at a "translation hub". I would think, though, that many languages do have a part-for-part translation, the combining part of which can be covered at resistant. Mihia (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that resistant to heat aint the same thing as heat-resistant, right? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, but this is why I originally asked "do you not agree that it is sum-of-parts?", in case this was your reason for wanting to keep it. Anyway, what do you think is the difference? Mihia (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It may shock you to realise that every closed compound is a sum of parts, but there is never any suggestion to delete them because of that, except those that are unrealistic. Certain compound words, however, do not lend themselves to being closed compounds, and are accepted as hyphenated compounds. This is possibly due to the length of one or both of the component parts. Resistant seems to fall into that category, so heat-resistant is acceptable as a compound word, but heatresistant is unrealistic, and as it turns out, rejected by virtually everybody. Anyway, the notion that heat-resistant should be rejected because it is an easily understood "sum of parts" is a fallacy - it is still a recognised compound word, albeit hyphenated. DonnanZ (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

heatresistant is but a spelling variant of heat-resistant: I see both as valid terms. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not likely to shock me to "realise" that closed compounds are also sum-of-parts, since this is something that I have mentioned myself on several previous occasions. We have no rule for deeming solid words SoP, and I doubt that a workable general rule could be devised even if we wanted to. (Rules for specific combining elements, such as "like", could be devised.) In contrast, we DO have a rule for deeming hyphenated compounds SoP. The fact that a hyphenated word is a "recognised" compound word is irrelevant. The only relevant argument against the nomination is that for some reason it is not SoP. Mihia (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mihia: If resistant to heat means the same thing as heat-resistant, doesn't that by itself make "heat-resistant" a set phrase when used as an adjective, since it is vanishingly unlikely that someone would say, e.g., "I bought a resistant to heat plate" or "they developed a resistant to heat alloy" or the like? bd2412 T 03:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, well, by "means the same thing" I mean "includes identical information content", not necessarily that the two are always used in exactly the same way syntactically. If you prefer, "heat-resistant" can be evaluated as SoP on the combination of "heat" and the combining form "-resistant". The combining form "-resistant" can be understood to exist from general meanings of the word according to general grammar rules (like "temperature-critical", "weather-dependent", etc. etc.), or if people think it warranted, the combining form could be mentioned specially at "resistant", where examples such as "heat-resistant" could be placed -- though the implication of this is that we would have to do the same for large numbers of "ordinary" words, otherwise the impression may be that words where it is not specifically mentioned do not allow a combining form. The main point anyway is that we do not need a trillion entries of the form "X-resistant" all defined as meaning, essentially, "resistant to X". Mihia (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, exactly as with antibiotic-resistant. There is no principled distinction to be made. bd2412 T 21:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Even the translation box in itself is reason enough to keep this. --Fytcha (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  No it isn't: see WT:THUB: "A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term". PUC – 19:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep per coalmine. The fact that it's written as one word is a testament to its frequency and treatment as a single concept. Otherwise, I would have weak kept for t-hub anyway. DAVilla 03:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The evidence so far is that that it isn't written as one word. Even the creator of heatresistant has now nominated it for deletion. In cases such as "heatresistant", "naturelover", "timeconsuming" etc. etc., inevitably one will find some examples of misprints and writings by people who cannot spell, including non-native writers, and these may well theoretically take a "word" over the citability threshold. In these cases we need to apply editorial judgement, which in this case will tell us that "heatresistant" is simply an error. Otherwise we will be obliged to include about a trillion other similar incorrectly runtogether combinations. Mihia (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right, that's a weak argument in this case, because the compound form is weakly, even questionably, attestable. So my vote it just weak keep for translation hub. DAVilla 11:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep. AG202 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

RFD-no-consensus AG202 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)