Talk:Facebook

Translations

I recommend taking these translations with a pinch of salt --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish so. They are the transliterations, especially the ones I added in non-Roman scripts. The Roman spelling is also used on Wikipedia and in official documents. I missed the French version you deleted. The spelling I offered is used when people talk about Facebook, not necessarily the official version. A Russian online user wouldn't bother typing Facebook but Фейсбук (also in lower case) or Arab would write فيس بوك instead of the romanised version. Do you have concrete examples you're not happy about? --Anatoli 00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I was thinking mostly about Fessebouc. sorry--Soleil levant 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked Fessebouc, féisbuc, fejsbuk and other Roman "misspellings". They are popular, perhaps they could be marked as "slang" or colloquialisms. Fessebouc even has a French entry. --Anatoli 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. Fessebouc is popular. --Diego Grez 00:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still considering deleting Fessebouc. Dont think it'll pass the test of time --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, maybe it is an union of stupid words but it is still popular and I think it should stay. --Diego Grez 00:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

German

The Duden (currently cited as a reference for the claim) doesn't say Facebook is genderless, it says (in incorrectly absolute terms) that it isn't used with the article. This is different from not having a gender, and is also the case with many other company names and placenames — and notably, they all can theoretically under certain circumstances take an article which reveals their gender, much like ostensibly proper nouns in English can be commonized and made countable in certain circumstances. In this case, google books:"im Facebook" "und" and google books:"ins Facebook" "und" show it to be neuter. - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: So neuter then? I was thinking of also adding a |prop=yes parameter used with proper nouns that would parenthesize the articles and add a note saying that the word didn't normally take them. Would that be better? —JohnC5 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this word is neuter, and yes, it should be possible to add a note that the article is only used in certain circumstances. De.Wikt's wording (see e.g. de:Frankfurt) is "Der Artikel wird gebraucht, wenn „...“ in einer bestimmten Qualität, zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt oder Zeitabschnitt als Subjekt oder Objekt im Satz steht.", which is a bit over-wordy to put in a declension table, but is a decent starting point if we want the note to explain when the article is used and not just that it sometimes isn't. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: I've added |prop= and |notes= parameters. You may add the note from de.wikt if you so wish. I agree that the current wording is so unwieldy as to be unhelpful. —JohnC5 02:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese

@Wikitiki89 where does the /i/ at the end of this come from? - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese has an intrusive /i/ that breaks certain consonants clusters and word-final consonants, especially in less formal pronunciations. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)