Talk:ISO 639
Add topicDeletion debate
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Can these be considered 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever in any language, never mind translingual? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. IMHO, they are covered by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The passage that literally nobody understands. This is not good news. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- They're undoubtedly specific and entries, but my point remains, are they 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- They are names of specific entities, ie, proper nouns. The only basis for excluding them is that they don't meet the applicable section of WT:CFI. That it is difficult to meet the requirements is the point. ISO 639 has not attestably entered the lexicon, not can we claim widespread colloquial use.
- CFI seems to have been written At a time when folks thought that WP had that part of the world covered and ignored the possibility that transliterations/translations, pronunciations, and the rest might be deemed to justify such entries. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I find it ironic that we delete stuff saying 'Not dictionary material: see WT:CFI, but CFI doesn't really have any information relevant to that. Why speedy delete Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton but allow these ISO entries an RFV? That's not purely rhetorical, any serious answer would be extremely helpful. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The CFI include the one of idiomaticity. If someone's sure an entry will fail it, he deletes it speedily. Perhaps someone might have speedily deleted ISO 216. It's up to the admin to decide what to do, and another can always call him on it. There have been many speedily deleted entries, or those marked with
{{d}}, that were undeleted and brought to RFD or RFV; some of them were kept in the end.—msh210℠ 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The CFI include the one of idiomaticity. If someone's sure an entry will fail it, he deletes it speedily. Perhaps someone might have speedily deleted ISO 216. It's up to the admin to decide what to do, and another can always call him on it. There have been many speedily deleted entries, or those marked with
- I find it ironic that we delete stuff saying 'Not dictionary material: see WT:CFI, but CFI doesn't really have any information relevant to that. Why speedy delete Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton but allow these ISO entries an RFV? That's not purely rhetorical, any serious answer would be extremely helpful. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- They're undoubtedly specific and entries, but my point remains, are they 'words', 'idioms' 'expressions' or whatever. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Right (what DCD said), they're covered by the CFI for specific entities' names. Technically, we should RFV them, but it'll fail, so I'll just say delete. (If they're kept, please move to WT:RFV.)—msh210℠ 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The passage that literally nobody understands. This is not good news. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, per WT:NOBODYHASTHESLIGHTESTCLUEWHATTODOWITHTHESETHINGS (aka WT:Unresolved issues/Names of specific entities). --Yair rand 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. These are names of documents, like The Bridge over the River Kwai and Charter of the United Nations.—msh210℠ 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Terms from technical standards are inherently prescriptive. If someone wants to keep these, at least take two minutes to add a single frippin' good citation to each one before we spend hours debating this. Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-15 06:42 z
Delete All names of technical standards, especially ones with abbreviations and numbers, belong in Wikipedia and not Wiktionary. If someone types in ISO 639 and Wiktionary doesn't have an entry, Wiktionary will offer Wikipedia's entry. Although I certainly would never type ISO 639 into Wiktionary, I'd go straight to 'pedia. We're looking for words and expressions in the English language, not in the technical jargon of international standards. If we include ISO 639 we go down a very slippery slope. If we absolutely must have an entry for it, it can go in an appendix with a redirect in the main dictionary. Facts707 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unless and until of course, someone uses it in a way that makes it part of the English language, such as "Wow, Jeff, you really got ISO 639'd at the meeting!" Facts707 07:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- This RFD is about the Translingual term, not the English. And I'm pretty sure cross-namespace redirects are generally considered a bad idea. --Yair rand 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. Then, "unless and until someone uses it in a way that makes it part of any human language." C'est dommage! Vous avez un ISO 639 sur votre tete! Facts707 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This RFD is about the Translingual term, not the English. And I'm pretty sure cross-namespace redirects are generally considered a bad idea. --Yair rand 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete all standard names as useless and being against common sense, keep ISO, DIN, SFS, SAE and other names of standardizing systems . Common sense isn't exactly a CFI criterion, but I think it should be. If we include names of standards, the next thing to include would be the official names of laws, decrees, government decisions or whatever - they are usually numbered. There are lots of other things to which numbers are given. In Helsinki and most other places of the world, for example, people refer to bus lines by their number. For many of them, it would be no problem to find loads of permanently archived quotes. --Hekaheka 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Hekaheka's excellent reasoning. ---> Tooironic 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Fail, all three. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)