Talk:Saint George

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

Saint George

Wiktionary is not a place to explain saints. I assume the only reason we have this one is he's the patron saint of England. If he were the patron saint of a non-English-speaking country, I suggest we would not have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Wiktionary is also not the place to explain where Chongqing is, you might say. As I see it, it's not doing us any harm, and it's even slightly helpful sometimes. Yes, Anglocentrism is the deciding factor in which saints we have and which we don't. Let's just wait for the rest to arrive and not worry, as long as the page comes up to our standards. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your point really, we could write a really good entry for George W. Bush, but it doesn't mean we should have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary indeed is not the place to explain where Chongqing is- it's the place to explain what "Chongqing" means. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, how do you propose we explain what Chongqing means without saying where it is? How do you propose we explain what Saint George means without saying who he was, and mentioning his role as patron saint (and perhaps referencing some business with oversized reptiles)? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete Wiktionary doesn't have entries for people. Saint and George explains the issue to the extent of our needs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Alexander the Great. Attila the Hun. Jack the Ripper. Van Gogh. Just sayin'. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, the CFI doesn't disallow it. Certainly the entries exist. So, Prosfilaes, are you just giving up on the prospect of explaining the non-SOP information in Saint George? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you giving up the prospect of explaining the non-SOP information in Civil War? There's just certain things that Wikipedia does better then us, and people by name is just one of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, of course. CFI allows to keep individuals but I don't remember the exact rules and what similar RFD's we had about it. Anyway, we had a number of long discussions about this kind of entries, otherwise they would have been long deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In reply to all, consensus can change, and in terms of 'this has been discussed before', George Washington has been deleted 6 times. In terms of non-SoP information, how can one guess from David + Beckham than David Beckham is an international footballer and model? What about Adam Smith? Not just the second US president and first vide-president, but the name of thousands upon thousands of people. Imagine how much we could write on that subject! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean John Adams. Adam Smith was never Vice-President nor President of the U.S. Anyway, I'm inclined to keep Saint George and anyone else whose name is different in different languages - and I mean not just by mechanically transliterating the name into other writing systems or phonetically transliterating it for languages like Latvian and Serbo-Croatian. Foreign translations are part of our remit, so people will expect to be able to come to Wiktionary to find out that Saint George is called Saint Georges in French, Sankt Georg in German, San Jorge in Spanish, San Giorgio in Italian, and so forth. But I don't feel it's our job to tell people that David Beckham is called デビッド・ベッカム in Japanese, Дэвид Бекхэм in Russian, and Deivids Bekhems in Latvian, because those changes are automatic and predictable to anyone who knows the language in question, so we don't need an entry for him. —Angr 11:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You've kinda made my point for me, in all the examples you've given it's the word for saint then the word for George. So your argument doesn't work, it totally defeats itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish say "San Jorge", but I don't think anyone ever called George Bush "Jorge Arbusto". I think that was Angr's point. David Beckham is still called David Beckham everywhere, Saint George is not. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Angr. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In WT:CFI "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." So no this doesn't rule out Saint George. I also notice it doesn't rule out W. Disney as W. is not a given name or a diminutive, it's an initial. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Some counts: keep: 4; delete: 3: --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)