Talk:this one

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.

---

this one and that one

Both are two words, not one. Fugyoo 12:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Two words, but arguably one specific concept. It is idiomatic to English to use two words for this idea – many languages use only one. Keep. Ƿidsiþ 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't a consideration in WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Ƿidsiþ: "It is idiomatic to English", that is in CFI, so that's a valid reason to keep this. Having said that, I personally am not too sure, but thinking more keep than delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing senses of "idiomatic". DCDuring TALK 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Any reason to keep these and not the other one, the short one, or the pink paisley one with green polka-dots? Well, that last one might not be attested, but what about the other two?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got another one. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not the only one: I've got the one I'm thinking about typing right now and the one I typed a few seconds ago. And then there's [[the one I was considering using as an example of how ridiculous this can get until I decided that I'd better quit before someone says, "wait, that's not the same type of thing, because it's got all sorts of clauses attached to it", forcing me to respond, "yeah, but it's actually all part of the same noun phrase" and yielding a whole long discussion about grammar that I'd rather not get into]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the "the ... ones" are comparable to these two. Though perhaps another one is. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep both - and any other pronoun that translates into several other languages as a single word. SemperBlotto 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep as translation targets, if not for other reasons. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Translation target" is not a valid consideration under WT:CFI, not that we need let such things trouble us. Increasingly Wiktionary seems to be a translation-target and translation-practice site rather than an adequate monolingual English dictionary. As such, is there any limit on what is to be justified on that basis? Would anyone care to prepare criteria or should we just vote on each item?

Without more English contributors and hiding of non-English material from potential contributors, we can expect English-only mirrors to capture more potential users. We really should mark entries that are only justifiable as translation targets for their benefit. (Are there languages where "such things" would be a translation target-justified entry?) DCDuring TALK 12:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as translation target, as an extra-CFI consideration. Tentative rule: "In order to be kept as a translation target, a term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages that do not tend to form long closed compounds." --Dan Polansky 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

translation hub?

I think this is "only justifiable as a translation target", can the definition be removed as SOP? Troll Control (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)