Talk:Wörterbuch

RFC discussion: July 2018–August 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (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.

---

Wörterbuch

Are proper names of dictionaries, e.g. "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache" or "Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich" [WBÖ], entry-worthly (as for WT:CFI)? -08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Not an RFC matter, unless these used to be linked at some point — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July 2021–May 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Wörterbuch#Hyponyms

All terms listed there are SoPs in my opinion. All redlinks, but the section would have to be blanked. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"hyphenated compounds" like Volapük-Wörterbuch are, but still could pass due to WT:COALMINE. --17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Could, but let’s not make it come that far. WT:COALMINE also has exceptions. Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included, a requirement for any inclusion. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Readers have no meritorious interest that these compounds be included"{{citation needed}}.
While the formation is trivial (language name + Wörterbuch), i see multiple points for inclusion:

• It's "all words of all languages". These are words.
• And they are single words, no multi-word terms or "spaced compounds". So for non-native there's also the problem of properly dividing Englischwörterbuch into it's parts.
• The sections shows which terms exist, and which do or might not. (e.g. Klingonwörterbuch and Klingonischwörterbuch do not exist.)
• Englischwörterbuch (etc.) could be both: 1. A monolingual, purely English dictionary like OED, or 2. a bilingual English-German/German-English dictionary. Maybe also 3. a bilingual English-French/French-English dictionary (same with other languages), but that might be trickier to attest.
• There's no reason for exclusion, SOP doesn't apply.
• There are two general problems, but that are general problems, and WT's bad entry layout is to blame:
  1. Many terms are both derived terms and hyponyms (e.g. Englischwörterbuch is derived from Wörterbuch and a hyponym of it). So properly they would have to be listed twice (like in Haus). An additional section "Derived hyponyms" would reduce repetions. (And as for "Derived hypernyms", "Derived synonyms", "Derived antonyms": there aren't as many as there are derived hyponyms.)
  2. It would be sufficient to only have "Englischwörterbuch (“English dictionary”)" inside of Wörterbuch. (As for the ambiguous meaning, there could be a general usage note or it could be added.) Then people could also find it and its meaning, and there would be no need for an (almost) useless entry.

--09:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:3721:3f99:5d35:2806:5b06:d485 (talk).

It's unfortunate that this is framed as a deletion discussion. The basic issue is that this is a Hyponyms section in an entry, not a list of all possible dictionary entries with the element "-wörterbuch". Yes, those would all be hyponyms, and CFI doesn't forbid entries for them (however useless most of the entries would be), but all single-word members of Category:German lemmas (69,246 entries) and Category:German non-lemma forms (211,074 entries) are hyponyms of German Wort- it's "all words in all languages", not "all words in all Hyponyms sections".

I would argue that including terms with -wörterbuch in them in this section is unnecessary clutter- no one who knows what a hyponym is would have any trouble determining that these are hyponyms, and anyone with any sense could figure out how to find them without consulting this section. In a case like this, the Hyponyms section should be reserved for terms that aren't so obviously marked as hyponyms, and if all possible hyponyms include -wörterbuch, then there shouldn't be a hyponyms section. After all, with thousands of languages having German names, it would probably be physically impossible to include all possible hyponyms- so any list would be incomplete. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Though there’s no point in shewing them as derived terms / hyponyms, some of them can be added as usage examples. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Does WT:SOP (and more broadly WT:CFI) really pertain to the individual entries of such sections of articles? I thought it only applied to articles as such and it is thus fine to create permanent redlinks in such sections. Fytcha (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove, makes no sense to clutter the page unnecessarily. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep. There's no clutter (the section is collapsed by default) and they would just be moved to Derived terms instead of Hyponyms so where's the benefit? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove. It's true that Wiktionary is not paper, but stuff like this is rather useless. I single example in the definition section would suffice. A lot of the ones under derived terms can also go in my view. Having size of a dictionary as a derived term of dictionary would be bananas. Wörterbuchgröße is not much less so. But we can argue about that. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

RFD-deleted I've deleted all hyponyms of type [language]wörterbuch. I've moved terms from the section derived terms that are hyponyms there instead. It's still too much, but I don't find it trivial to decide which are SoP. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)