Talk:north wind

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.

---

north wind

Sum of parts. -- Prince Kassad 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I don't like saying it, the meaning isn't that transparent to an English speaker. Is a wind that comes from the north, or that is traveling north? Perhaps this could be handled as a usage note at wind to avoid having west-south-west wind et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not. That's why there is a definition in north that specifically caters to this problem. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, beautiful. Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This relentless determination to break all our entries down to the smallest possible units is totally counter-productive. The north wind is a single specific concept in cultures across the world; it is personified, it is conceived of as one thing. And on a point of historical information, it's not necessary formed from (deprecated template usage) north + (deprecated template usage) wind in the way that getting rid of this entry would imply. The north is probably adverbial; this probably came into English as a single phrase and (like Dutch (deprecated template usage) noordwind, German (deprecated template usage) Nordwind) is attested at the earliest possible stage of the language. Even the definition is not obvious; and this is hardly a "meteorological" term as the (deprecated template usage) north entry implies. Ƿidsiþ 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The definition of "north" used in the SOP allegation is this: "Of wind, from the north". See also Talk:free variable. Adding to "red" the definition "Of a dwarf star, small and relatively cool one of the main sequence" does not make "red dwarf" a semantic sum of parts. --Dan Polansky 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Widsith and Dan are quite right.-- Ghost of WikiPedant 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:COALMINE. —Ruakh_TALK 21:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The logic of directions applied to various geographic, geological, meteorological, and navigational entities should not require lexical treatment at each point of the compass rose (4, 8, 16?) for each collocating noun (eg, "drift", "face", "wind", "current", "heading", "course", "bearing"). This seems like yet another example of something better covered by a construction-grammar appendix linked to from the various nouns and the compass point names rather than each individual collocation. Such an appendix would allow for discussion of the means of communicating more precise compass directions ("3 degree, 50 minutes, 35 seconds west of North") and other modes of communicating direction. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WT:COALMINE if nothing else. (Northwind had one citation already; I've given it two more.) — Beobach 09:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Also keep per Ƿidsiþ. — Beobach 23:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep per COALMINE.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Even if this is no more than sum-of-parts, I would keep it for no reason other than it's by far the most common collocation for north in this sense. We tend to go either way on these, usually deleting but with some big exceptions. Anyways, Widsith has some very good contributing evidence to this case. DAVilla 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Are we going to create entries for south wind, east wind and west wind too? ---> Tooironic 22:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, they do have different personalities. DAVilla 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

kept (or rather, withdrawn) -- Prince Kassad 19:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)