Talk:pine torch
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFD discussion: July 2022–January 2023
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
SOP Dunderdool (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Firstly, it’s a compound word and also a rather basic term. Secondly, there are valid translations of this word in other languages. Further, other dictionaries also keep this term. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Lexico sucks even more than Wiktionary Dunderdool (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wiktionarians love material+object SOPs, see also Talk:mink coat. While this one should probably be kept as a THUB, the translations should be checked first; despite its composition, Japanese 松明 seems to mean torch from any of a variety of burnable materials, not only pine wood. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. - TheDaveRoss 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Yeah, but Lexico sucks even more than Wiktionary". Is this a crusade of sorts? DonnanZ (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WT:THUB: the translations do not appear to be compounds or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It's correct. Unfortunately Lexico has been taken down and replaced by Dictionary.com, a very poor substitute. DonnanZ (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing idiomatic about it and I don't think it's worth keeping as a translation hub. Ultimateria (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- RFD-kept: no consensus for deletion. The translation hub argument has some force on the face of it, e.g. via Latin taeda and Spanish ocote, but whether they are really accurate we do not know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)