Talk:共同通信社

共同通訊社 & 共同通讯社 (Chinese) and 共同通信社 (Japanese)
Seems sum of parts, and not dictionary material. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Japanese is a proper noun, and thus not SOP. However, whether that proper noun merits an entry, I am uncertain.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your logic. Both the Chinese and Japanese are proper nouns, the Chinese is merely a translation of the original Japanese. Xinhua News Agency, France 24 and China Radio International are also proper nouns, and of a similar type, but we don't have entries them - nor should we, arguably, since that's the job of an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Then again we do have British Broadcasting Corporation, but that hasn't been through a deletion request (yet). ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep 共同通信社. It might appear as if a sum of parts that means a certain type of news agencies ("通信社") that are based on joint ("共同") membership or something, while it actually is the name of a particular agency. The possible misinterpretation would motivate us to have an entry for 共同通信社 to explain that it can only be a proper noun in Japanese. Whether to have Xinhua News Agency mentioned above is a different matter, because that term would be unlikely to be mistaken as a general term. I don't have a particular opinion on the other two Chinese entries listed. Whym (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your initial comment was seems sum of parts, which demonstrably isn't, as much as it might look like one.  That's what I was responding to in the first sentence of my post above.  Your second comment, [seems to be] not dictionary material, was what I was responding to in the second sentence of my post above.  Does that help make my logic any clearer?  (Serious question, no snark intended at all.)  Note that my previous post doesn't actually evince any position on whether  merits an entry.
 * FWIW, looking at this issue again, I lean towards Whym's opinion, in that does indeed look like it might just be any old  that happens to be  in some way -- i.e., it does look like an SOP phrase.  However, this term really isn't just an SOP phrase, it's the name of a specific news agency, so perhaps an entry is merited to make that clear: users could conceivably come here looking for this as a term to find in a dictionary.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kept all. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kept all. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)