Appendix talk:X is a beautiful language

Copied from a translation request

See Wiktionary:Translation_requests#.22X_is_a_beautiful_language.22_in_language_X. --Anatoli 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June 2017–February 2024

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

Appendix:X is a beautiful language

They are present at the translation section of English is a beautiful language.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your logic would be flawed if English is a beautiful language is deleted. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So maybe on hold until the discussion of the latter is closed.--115.27.203.95 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete. That RFD failed. I would have preferred to keep the entry, but I'm not comfortable with keeping the appendix either if the entry is unwanted. It makes it seem like the appendix namespace is a space for random trash. Either the phrase is good enough for the dictionary or it's not. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the RFD for anyone who wants to read it. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please delete per above. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, since English is a beautiful language has been deleted. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Mahāgaja. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 21:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Appendices are very flexible about what they can have and the entry mentioned above has been deleted. @Barytonesis, Soumya-8974: visibility since the entry was deleted after your vote. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@PUC Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete. This was a silly entry outside the appendix since this hasn't ever come up in any casual conversation I've ever had. What makes this appendix-worthy either? What value does it add? This question doesn't seem to have been answered in any above keep votes. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: With due respect, that’s your problem. What if I showed you a YouTube video of a song (in a particular language) and say it is a beautiful language? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī For the phrasebook more than just one song would be needed. I never said the phrase never appeared anywhere, but that it's not nearly commonplace enough for me to consider it worthy of inclusion in a phrasebook, per evidence given in the last RFD. And my point here was, what makes the appendix then a proper place for this? What role does it fulfill for our readers? Who would look this up and why? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete, this is a totally random phrase, not idiomatic in any language as far as I can see. It was deleted from the phrasebook, so why should we keep it in the Appendix? There's enough useless junk there, we don't need a proliferation of translations of random phrases. If you want to know how to say that a particular language is beautiful, Google Translate will likely do just fine. This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards delete, per Pseudoskull and This, that and the other. Doesn't seem to have a lot of value tbh. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: this should have been in the mainspace as part of the phrasebook. google books:"is a beautiful language" phrasebook finds the following phrasebooks: 1[1], 2[2], 3[3]. This is the phrasebook version of the lemming principle that was rejected at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Phrasebook CFI, for reasons not very well articulated, IMHO. I tried google:"is a beautiful language" translate and it discovered the entry, so some might find it and find it useful. Here are page views for the phrase and some other items, all with similar visit rate; it fares better than I am thirsty and I am hungry. So much for objective facts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete per This, that and the other. Graham11 (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Aside from whether this is worthy of inclusion, some of these may be word-for-word, grammatically clueless constructions. For example, Lithuanian "lietuviškas kalba yra graža" should be "lietuvių (or much less naturally, lietuviška) kalba yra graži". "graža" isn't even a word or inflection in Lithuanian at all. The Latvian translation means "Latvian-man language is beautiful". Rubbish. 98.170.164.88 07:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep as I find it interesting, but it needs checking and cleanup as 98.170 says. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Kept per general consensus Denazz (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)