View source for Talk:car door

{{archive-top|rfv|passed}}
"the door of a car" - is this dictionary material? [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:It's appropriate, because a car door, like a [[garage door]], is significantly different from other doors. It's specifically designed for a car, just like a [[garage door]] is specifically designed for a garage, unlike a bathroom door or a bedroom door which are not designed specifically for those rooms. [[User:Fark|Fark]] 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition does not tell us anything more than the phrase itself.  What else could a ‘car door’ be?  [[User:Widsith|Widsith]] 09:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:See my comment above. I suppose you haven't [[User:Fark|Fark]] 13:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, dictionary material.  Certainly can have different translations, and as [[User:Fark]] points out, is not ''any'' door for a car, such as a [[garage door]].  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] [[User talk:Connel MacKenzie#|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Connel MacKenzie|C]] 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have seen your comment.  It doesn't convince me at all: yes, a car door is different from other doors, but that difference is amply described by the use of the qualifying word ‘car’.  The definition cannot tell us anything more than the phrase itself.  And I don't agree with Connel – it is not inconceivable that you could use ‘car door’ to mean ‘a door through which a car goes’ – e.g. of a ferry you might say, ‘That's the car door, that's the foot-passenger door.’  This definition at the moment is totally useless – it's just a rearrangement of the words in the entry title.  This is normal English – one noun qualifying another noun.  There's nothing else to say about it!  [[User:Widsith|Widsith]] 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:Rather than go over this again, and again, please explain what you mean.  From my POV, your assessment is simply wrong; I'd like to understand ''why'' you oppose having such a reasonable, helpful entry.  "Car door" can be used as you say, for a ferry, but that is not the normal meaning ascribed when one says "car door" - it would only work the way you say, in a very specific (unusual) context.  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] [[User talk:Connel MacKenzie#|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Connel MacKenzie|C]] 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::My point is that the way the noun [[car]] qualifies the noun [[door]] is not in the least idiomatic.  The sense is exactly as expected – ‘door pertaining to a car’.  Yes, it's normally used of a door ''in'' a car, but it doesn't preclude other interpretations.  The sense is identical to [[car roof]], [[car seat]] etc etc.  Any two nouns in English can be put together in this way (well, within reason).  And the argument that it is made specifically for a car really has nothing to do with it – the same could be said for [[doll-house door]] or indeed [[Honda door]], [[Jaguar door]] etc.    [[User:Widsith|Widsith]] 15:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you have the same objection to including [[garage door]]? [[User:Fark|Fark]] 19:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah, absolutely.  The door from my hallway into the garage is called the garage door, and it isn't ‘long and low’ as this definition says.  There is no way to define the term beyond saying that it's a door to a garage, and that is saying no more than the phrase itself.  [[User:Widsith|Widsith]] 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::: While [[Jaguar door]] almost certainly doesn't meet the attestation aspects of our criteria, [[car door]] certainly does.  I don't recall seeing that two nouns used in comination ''need'' to be [[idiomatic]] for inclusion here; I'd argue against that proposition ''if'' someone made it.  I don't see the benefit of fighting against reasonable entries.  It ''is'' a set colocation of two nouns, that together almost always mean a certain thing.  While not truly idiomatic, it does seem to meet my notion of a "set phrase."  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] [[User talk:Connel MacKenzie#|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Connel MacKenzie|C]] 05:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Does it?  Oh all right.  You ask me what the benefit of fighting against this term is.  The benefit to my mind is that it stops us looking amateurish.  There is no point adding a term to Wiktionary if our definition does no more than restate the headwords.  The only reason to have it would be to make a point that it cannot be used in any other sense, which as it happens is not the case.  Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this?  [[User:Widsith|Widsith]] 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:It seems pretty borderline to me, but it passes [[Wiktionary_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion#Pawley_list|Pawley test]] #2 because we can say a [[gull-wing door]] is a type of [[car door]]. Adding subtypes of car doors also makes the page look less pointless. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::The point of adding an entry such as this is to express how a term is commonly used, as this entry does.  It seems obvious to me that your opposition to this entry is an opposition not to the term itself, but rather, opposition to the Wiktionary practice of including set phrases, or anything that is not an idiom (if the headword contains a space.)  Forgive me if this sounds amateurish, but that objection seems like a waste of time.  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] [[User talk:Connel MacKenzie#|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Connel MacKenzie|C]] 06:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::No, Connel, it's an opposition to the term itself.  Otherwise rest assured I will say so.  [[User:Widsith|Widsith]] 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it time we had a firm policy on such terms? Every time someone creates one like it, we get the same old "X + Y is the sum of its parts: delete - that's not a valid reason: keep - it means what is says so there's no point in defining it: delete - but it's not just ''any'' X + Y: keep" arguments. Perhaps Pawley should be put in a place where everyone sees it.

There are some good reasons above for keeping this term, which, to my mind, suggest we should keep it. The fact that the definition is a rearrangement of the words being defined is not a valid argument against the term. The criterion is whether or not the term is idiomatic, that is, whether it has a specific meaning not deducible from its components.

So "car door" can be used to refer to the door to a railway car (carriage), or the door into the passenger compartment of a hot-air balloon, but, ''specifically'', it means the door of an automobile. If you hear someone saying "I saw a car door lying in the road", you know that it is the door of an automobile that is being referred to rather than any of the other possible meanings.

Similarly, "garage door" could refer to the door to the garage in one's house, as Widsith uses it above, or the door of a garage where you buy petrol/gasoline, but ''specifically'' it means the main entrance of a garage in which a car can be stored. 

The existence of these specific meanings suggests that these terms should be in.

Note, as always, that the "slippery slope" argument does not apply - allowing "car door" and "garage door" does not mean that we automatically must allow "train door", "taxi door", "shed door", "cabin door" and every other combination of X + "door" - each of these would be considered on its own merits if it came to be entered in Wiktionary. (None of them would stay, I would imagine.) &mdash; [[User:Paul G|Paul G]] 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
: I agree with Widsith for all his reasons. Also I cant see the point of trivial phrases whose meaning is absolutely obvious, and can be easily ascertained by looking up one or both of the words. I cannot see even the most ignorant uneducated non-natrive speaker dashing to his computer to look up a phrase like this! It beggers belief. However rfvpassed. [[User:Andrew massyn|Andrew massyn]] 09:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
{{archive-bottom}}

{{archive-top|rfd|passed}}
== <s>[[:car door#rfd-notice--|car door]]</s> ==

: Could be a sum of parts. There is a 2006 discussion at [[Talk:car door]]. Can someone attest [[cardoor]] so that [[WT:COALMINE]] applies? And does translation hub argument apply, via French [[portière]] and Spanish [[portezuela]]? {{R:OneLook|car door}} does not find the classical lemming dictionaries. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 08:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
:: [[cardoor]]? Ugh. DP wants to use coalmine for all the wrong reasons. Just '''keep''' it. ''[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 09:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)''
::: @[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]]: In the spirit of substance-based discussion seeking arguments and evidence, keep it ''why''? --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
:::: It does appear to have two senses, one automotive, the other a railway [[carriage door]], especially in American English; the quote appears to bear this out. ''[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 13:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)''
:: I cannot see any reason why this is not sum of parts. [[User:Mihia|Mihia]] ([[User talk:Mihia|talk]]) 23:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
:: '''Abstain'''. It probably passes COALMINE, but a problem is that most appearances on BGC are in snippet view and that in many cases where "cardoor(s)" is attested, there are also unverifiable hits for "car door". Leaving those out, some results where "cardoor(s)" is the most common are: [https://books.google.com/books?id=ATseAQAAMAAJ&q=cardoors], [https://books.google.com/books?id=B_JQAQAAIAAJ&q=cardoors] (messy, 3 hits for "cardoor(s)" and 2 for "car door(s)"), [https://books.google.com/books?id=IahcAAAAMAAJ&q=cardoors], [https://books.google.com/books?id=S3Y_AAAAYAAJ&q=cardoor] ("car door" could be a less common variant), [https://books.google.com/books?id=SH4YAQAAIAAJ&q=cardoor] ("car door" is less common than "cardoor"). Many hits refer to agricultural suppliers operating from their car in the US ca. 1910 to 1960.
:: The sense "carriage door" can be attested for "car door" (probably not for "cardoor"), but consider {{m|en|car}} senses 3 to 5. <s>←₰-→</s> [[User:Lingo Bingo Dingo|<small>Lingo</small> <sup>Bingo</sup> <sub>Dingo</sub>]] ([[User talk:Lingo Bingo Dingo|talk]])  11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
: <del>'''Delete.'''</del>  Otherwise we need [[truck door]], etc.  [[User:Nicole Sharp|Nicole Sharp]] ([[User talk:Nicole Sharp|talk]]) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
:: If "car door" exists as an elision of [[carriage door]] (as opposed to just being "the door of a car"), then '''keep.'''  [[User:Nicole Sharp|Nicole Sharp]] ([[User talk:Nicole Sharp|talk]]) 23:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
::: I'm not in America, but what about a [[boxcar]] door? Can it also be called a [[car door]]? ''[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)''
*'''Leaning keep'''. I would think that on an automobile, "car door" refers to the driver and passenger doors, but not to a rear door like a hatchback. I would agree that the door of a boxcar is also called a car door. [[User:BD2412|<i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 14:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
*:[https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hatchback+door Here] and [https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hatchback here], "hatchback door" is defined as "a sloping rear '''car door''' that is lifted to open". &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
*:: Even so, a brief Google Books search suggests that it is more common to refer to the hatchback door as a "rear door" than a "car door". [[User:BD2412|<i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' – sum-of-parts. The argument (offered at the 2006 RFV) that a car door differs from a bathroom door in being specifically designed for a car does not cut it, as far as I'm concerned. The same is true for {{m|en|car fender}}, which is a {{m|en|fender}} specifically designed for a car. Likewise for {{m|en|car axle}}, {{m|en|car engine}}, {{m|en|car tyre}}, {{m|en|car spoiler}}, ..., all of which are in actual use. &nbsp;--[[User:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 17:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
:'''Delete''', SOP. [[User:Per utramque cavernam|Per]] [[User talk:Per utramque cavernam|utramque]] [[Special:Contributions/Per_utramque_cavernam|cavernam]] 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' via [[WT:THUB]]: French [[portière]] and Spanish [[portezuela]]; other wikts suggest Dutch [[portier]] and Italian [[portiera]]. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 21:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' as translation hub. — [[User:Mnemosientje|Mnemosientje]] ([[User talk:Mnemosientje|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Mnemosientje|c]]) 16:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

'''Kept'''. [[User:BD2412|<i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 16:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
{{archive-bottom}}