Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases in various languages: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:51, 24 May 2005

Common phrases in various languages

Wikipedia is not a usage guide nor a a travel guide. This article has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, nor is there anything to stop it from growing indefinetly. A home might be found for it at Wikibooks ~~or possibly Wikitravel~~.

The alternative of moving it to Wikitravel is apparantly not an option due to incompatible licensing. It'll have to be Wikibooks then. Thanks to Cjensen for pointing this out.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Needs to go to Wikitravel. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at how very complete it is, and suspicious of a copyvio, until I went to the history page and saw that the page has been around since December 2001. In other words it's one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia. So keep out of a sense of venerating one's elders. --Angr/_comhrá 16:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're not disagreeing with the fact that it's in obvious conflict with our policies. Were they around when the article was started? Did Wikitravel exist back then? I also had the impression that VfDs were supposed to be about the articles themselves, not the people who have contributed to them. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Move out of a sense that elders can be wrong and it should be at Wikitravel. Superm401-Talk 16:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should definitely be moved to Wikitravel, or maybe even Wikibooks. Jotomicron 19:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitravel. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel. Megan1967 05:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DJ Clayworth 05:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move. After spending hours wikifying the Hindi section, I just see this now. Oh, the bitter irony! Now I won't feel guilty for not starting the Urdu or adding IPA tonight. Perhaps I'll cut and paste into the Wikitravel Hindi/Urdu phrase book? It was sparse and full of errors. So not all was a waste I suppose. I also don't get the copyvio issue. Languages are public domain, right? Unless some dacoit is copying verbatim, it isn't preposterous that the contributer is a native speaker or student, right? Anyway, I do see the point for deletion. If languages don't evolve, they die; such it is here. Though having many related languages and the same phrases together is fascinating to compare on a theoretical linguistics level. Goodness gracious me, I just wish I hadn't of overlooked this article's pending status! As my first wikibution, it was good practice at the very least. Khirad 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this article as a waste of time at all. It just happens to be in the wrong wiki, and I think this list could be of immense value to Wikitravel. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Hedley 16:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitravel or Wikibooks or whatever might be appropriate. — mark ✎ 19:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Why should everyone be so delete-happy? Just leave it, what can it hurt? It's useful, and trans-wiki-ing is stupid bullshit. If I want to find something, I'll look on Wikipedia, I don't want to have to search a million different "wikis" because that makes me want to shoot the person who invented the word "wiki"--sébastien 05:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's really not that difficult. If you lost your tourist phrasebook, you go to Wikitravel to pick it up. In fact, you should reconsider your reasons to look for it on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a general knowledgebase. — mark ✎ 07:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete drini ☎ 05:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only. This cannot be moved to directly to Wikitravel due to licensing differences (Wikitravel is CC-by-SA licensed). If moved there it will be immediately VfD'ed as a copyvio. Individual contributors who are interested are welcome to come to Wikitravel and work on the various phrasebooks. -- Cjensen 07:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly unhappy with it, but it's probably better to transwiki to Wikibooks. It would be useful if appropriate Wikipedia pages linked to it however. / Alarm 08:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This could be incorporated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, as one of the standard external links, just like the ones to Ethnologue.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep or move (as is without risk of deletionism), definitely not delete. – Kaihsu 15:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Keep The article is not really that useful for tourists (anyone fancy a trip to Anglo-Saxon times?) but is of considerable interest from the linguistic point of view, in showing how a few common phrases are treated differently in different languages, and thus complements the various other articles of a linguistic nature. I would say this is eminently encyclopedic. If it gets too big it could be split up, perhaps by language family: constructed languages already have a separate article although Esperanto somehow appears in both! rossb 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree, being a linguist myself. The most important reason is that phrases and snatches like this are by far the least interesting from a cross-linguistic point of view. Look at the article: most listings are language-specific phrases lacking any grammatical embedding. Greetings for example are often fossilized scripts that are not comparable cross-linguistically (incidentally, this 'article' does not even succeed in spelling out any of those scripts (it only contains the English 'hello' and 'goodbye') and and their loose equivalents on other languages). Demonstrative phrases like 'that one' and 'this' are either not interesting to compare because they're not really phrases, or they are impossible to compare because of missing (sentential) context. Additionally, the very few full sentences that there are are not glossed and thus are still useless for a linguistic comparison on a morpheme-by-morpheme basis. — mark ✎ 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 * '''Keep''' or '''move (as is without risk of deletionism)''', definitely '''not delete'''. &ndash; [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] 15:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' The article is not really that useful for tourists (anyone fancy a trip to Anglo-Saxon times?) but is of considerable interest from the linguistic point of view, in showing how a few common phrases are treated differently in different languages, and thus complements the various other articles of a linguistic nature. I would say this is eminently encyclopedic. If it gets too big it could be split up, perhaps by language family: constructed languages already have a separate article although Esperanto somehow appears in both! [[User:Ross Burgess|rossb]] 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
+** I '''strongly disagree''', being a linguist myself. The most important reason is that phrases and snatches like this are by far the least interesting from a cross-linguistic point of view. Look at the article: most listings are language-specific phrases lacking any grammatical embedding. Greetings for example are often fossilized scripts that are not comparable cross-linguistically (incidentally, this 'article' does not even succeed in spelling out any of those scripts (it only contains the English 'hello' and 'goodbye') and and their loose equivalents on other languages). Demonstrative phrases like 'that one' and 'this' are either not interesting to compare because they're not really phrases, or they are impossible to compare because of missing (sentential) context. Additionally, the very few full sentences that there are are not glossed and thus are still useless for a linguistic comparison on a morpheme-by-morpheme basis. &mdash; [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|&#9998;]] 19:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)