Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases in various languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to wikibooks. -- Scott eiπ 21:57, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) keep. -- Scott eiπ 05:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
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.
Peter Isotalo 10:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm sorry for being an inexperienced klutz, but I should've included common phrases in constructed languages in this vote as well. Are there any objections to including it in this vote?
- Peter Isotalo 21:24, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- My delete/transwiki vote counts for that one too, but I'm afraid it's a little late to extend the VfD. — mark ✎ 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)
- No matter how flawed the reasoning behind a vote is, it's still valid. You've made it well known that you think these votes on these bases are bad, stupid, whatever. Now, it's bordering on harassing the voters. --Node 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 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]
- Keep. Hedley 16:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki both Common phrases in various languages and Common phrases in constructed languages 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 would have to 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]
- This sounds like an argument for improving the article and putting it on a more scientific basis, rather than deleting it! rossb 20:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. It is unsalvageable, starting with the title. My general point is precisely that common phrases are the least interesting data from a linguistic point of view. — mark ✎ 20:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark, this page provides samples (however representative or unrepresentative they may be) of languages, often with IPA representation. That alone is of enough linguistic value to me, especially since many of the phrases are repeated again in different languages and so can be used for comparison. And if it were intended as a phrasebook, I doubt it would use IPA as most tourists won't know it and most American tourists won't be willing to learn it. --Node 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. It is unsalvageable, starting with the title. My general point is precisely that common phrases are the least interesting data from a linguistic point of view. — mark ✎ 20:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move it to Wikibooks. Wikibooks is a better medium for that sort of tutorial content, don't you think? Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not a tutorial. By the way, is there a better way to place a vote than by editing? A better method would be helpful and more efficient. Perhaps a forum such as the one presented by the [www.antimoon.com] website?
- This sounds like an argument for improving the article and putting it on a more scientific basis, rather than deleting it! rossb 20:40, 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]
- Keep, long established and thorough. Should be grandfathered. Definitely too useful to delete. Xoloz 17:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I see no strong reason to delete, and it's awfully useful, even encyclopedic. Basil Fawlty 00:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's "useful" it's a usage guide, if not it can only exist by the use of original research; both clearly violate our policies. Could someone voting to keep please present a single motivation that is not related to age, prestige of the contributors or completely unassociated VfD-politics? You're giving inclusionism a bad reputation here. / Peter Isotalo 06:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- That's pretty bad logic. Anything that's useful is a usage guide? Well, I find Wikipedia useful. Thus, you're all wrong and Wikipedia is a usage guide! And since I find cellphones useful, they must be usage guides too!! And sex is useful, that must be a usage guide as well. Hmm... I never realised so many different things were usage guides! --Node 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Whom are you trying to fool? The only argumentation given is that it's "useful" or old, and not a peep about the thouroughly unencyclopedic character of the article. You even admit yourself that it's unencyclopedic, and then blame me for being illogical. Again, I think you're giving inclusionism a very, very bad reputation. / Peter Isotalo 13:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- "If it's "useful" it's a usage guide". You said it. I responded. Duh. --Node 21:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Whom are you trying to fool? The only argumentation given is that it's "useful" or old, and not a peep about the thouroughly unencyclopedic character of the article. You even admit yourself that it's unencyclopedic, and then blame me for being illogical. Again, I think you're giving inclusionism a very, very bad reputation. / Peter Isotalo 13:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- That's pretty bad logic. Anything that's useful is a usage guide? Well, I find Wikipedia useful. Thus, you're all wrong and Wikipedia is a usage guide! And since I find cellphones useful, they must be usage guides too!! And sex is useful, that must be a usage guide as well. Hmm... I never realised so many different things were usage guides! --Node 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it's "useful" it's a usage guide, if not it can only exist by the use of original research; both clearly violate our policies. Could someone voting to keep please present a single motivation that is not related to age, prestige of the contributors or completely unassociated VfD-politics? You're giving inclusionism a bad reputation here. / Peter Isotalo 06:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep ℬastique▼talk 14:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's kind of useful to get an impression of the various languages. Too useful to delete. Holger Finken 22:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to "My hovercraft is full of eels". (alternatively delete). Edits to this vote are Holger Finken's sole contributions, btw. --Bishonen | talk 22:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazingly Strong Keep. Although encyclopaedic this article is not, it's also not full of snot. It's much much too useful, and you're much much too abuseful, for this article to go to pot. --Node 04:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, non narramus "interwiki" cando dispiagher sas pàzinas in su Wikitravel. Wikitravel non est unu de sas wikis de su fundatzione Wikimedia. --Node 04:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is very useful (though probably in need of cleanup), not only for the interested reader, but also as a merge destination for various foreign-language phrases that occasionally get added to Wikipedia. This is also a good merge destination for "List of x phrases" for languages that may not be as notable or large as List of Latin phrases. --Deathphoenix 12:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely Keep It's been of great use to me; I refer to it from time to time. It serves as a comparison of other languages. --Chris 02:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this definately falls into the class of articles of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.--nixie 02:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- pne 08:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- this is exactly the sort of thing I used to enjoy browsing encyclopedias for as a kid. It's not harmful, it's factual, it's interesting, it's widely linked, it's still being actively edited and used. People are adding sounds to it! Moving this to Wikibooks would be a shame. — Catherine\talk 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --Lumijaguaari 05:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.