I think the existing policy is working well, as it has been for a long time, and oppose the recent change in wording that moves the proposed barrier from two to ten languages for the closed-compound words .... really, I don't see any reason to worry about a flood of spurious words, and it will save our contributors a lot of work to use the existing policy rather than having to scour around looking for ten different languages all with a single-word term for the same thing. Unless we're allowing dialects, which I think would be against the spirit of the proposal, requiring ten languages would put such a burden on the contributors that I think most people just wouldnt bother creating such entries at all. —Soap— 23:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The impact of this proposal could be mitigated by requiring that, in the spirit of the already present condition that "two qualifying translations must support the English term", at least ten (this is a tentative number) entry-worthy word-for-word-compound translations, ideally from different language families, be present. This added condition could potentially eliminate the risk of seeing the likes of animal rights activist proliferate (in other words, German Tierrechtsaktivist and Swedish djurrättsaktivist alone would not be enough to support its existence). - User:PUC