Talk:insignis-pine
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Dan Polansky in topic RFD discussion: May–September 2019
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.
Also insignis-pines. Entry is not necessary when it is just following normal English hyphenation rules. Could these cases be addressed via speedy delete? CFI doesn't actually exclude these from being created. -Mike (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (as creator). This is not a case of an attributive noun, but is a real (and evidently dated) spelling for the regular noun, which is worth documenting and by no means "normal English hyphenation rules". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- And I still think it unnecessary. Just one more reason why I think hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms should always be combined on a single page. -Mike (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain. I think insignis pine is itself dated (based on the obsolete genus name Pinus insignis), superseded by Monterey pine and radiata pine. DonnanZ (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This type of entry is all correct. It is even needed because for example if you use it in glosses it will be a redlink otherwise. Fay Freak (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)