Talk:生物毒素兵器禁止条約

RFD discussion: March 2018–June 2019
Sum of parts surely. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. This is a proper noun, as the name of a treaty, and as such has some lexical specificity.  I'd object if this had been created as a phrase:
 * But as the entry currently stands, it refers to a specific thing, and has value as a glossary item, at a bare minimum for translation purposes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But as the entry currently stands, it refers to a specific thing, and has value as a glossary item, at a bare minimum for translation purposes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if it's not SOP, it looks encyclopedic to me. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, how is the entry encyclopedic? I had understood (perhaps incorrectly?) that  in reference to Wiktionary entries meant that the entries provide the kind of content you'd expect from an encyclopedia -- long-form descriptions of the subject matter.  All that the linked Japanese entry provides is the kind of information one expects from a dictionary: etymology, pronunciation, and a brief definition, enhanced in this case by linking to the relevant WP article.
 * Is the [[BWC]] entry then also encyclopedic? What are the criteria for encyclopedic-ness?  (Honest question, no snark.)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * By encyclopedic, I meant that it's something that should not belong in a dictionary but in something like Wikipedia. It's a name of a treaty, so I don't think it's worth inclusion. I think this is related to WT:NSE. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (Forgot to answer this:) I wouldn't consider BWC to be encyclopedic because it's an initialism, which would be useful to include, as long as it satisfies WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't include Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty either, so why would the Japanese entry get a free run? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we? Per WT:NSE, such terms that meet attestation requirements could merit inclusion.  Indeed,, , and  all generate sufficient hits to pass the attestation bar.  I know from personal experience that it can be quite difficult to find translations of such proper nouns.  Wiktionary could be quite helpful in that regard.  If we include BWC because it's useful, why not the full titles, which can also be useful?  We have no meaningful space limitations (“Wiktionary is not paper”), and I cannot think of any other deleterious impacts from including such terms.  (Again, honest query -- no snark.)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true that WT:NSE is quite vague, and I think we need to have some policy on these kinds of names. There are many titles of literary works or policies that might meet the attestation requirements, like the play Hamlet or the Treaty of Versailles, but I really don't feel comfortable including these in a dictionary. The titles of Wikipedia articles in the respective languages are good enough for me to find the translations for these entities. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * “I really don't feel comfortable including these in a dictionary.” -- Thank you for describing your viewpoint. I confess I don't understand your discomfort.
 * As a counterpoint to your Wikipedia use case, there are many things that aren't in Wikipedia in all languages, where Wiktionary entries could be useful. The three examples above from Tooironic are such examples.  Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions is apparently only available in English, Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro is only available in English, Arabic, Bahasa Melayu, and Chinese, and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is available in 34 languages, but certainly not all of them.  Moreover, if I'm looking up what something in Language A is called in Language B, I would turn first to a dictionary -- not to an encyclopedia -- and I would hope to find the kinds of things usually in a dictionary, like etymology and pronunciation.   ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That it would be harmless or even useful to have these entries is beside the point, imho. The only question we should ask ourselves is: "does it belong in/does it fall within the scope of a dictionary?".
 * And I share Justinrleung's discomfort here. I think that kind of things could belong in an Appendix (a underused namespace); putting them on an equal footing with things like, or  is . As DCDuring said, "the core of a dictionary are substitutable definitions." --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As a professional translator who often struggles to find translations of things like the [[BWC]], I would argue that this does indeed fall within the scope of a dictionary. (As a side note, if we are to keep the [[BWC]] entry solely for its usefulness for unpacking the initialism, shouldn't we expand the entry to include at least some of the other potential matches?)  For that matter, if we are to keep the [[BWC]] entry for its usefulness in essentially redirecting the user to the full English term, I don't understand the apparent opposition to keeping 生物毒素兵器禁止条約 for its similar usefulness in redirecting the user to the full English term.  Like initialism expansion, translation is a matter of substituting definitions: a translation of a term can also be viewed as a definition of the term, given in a different language.
 * As a learner of various other languages, with an avid interest in etymology, word formation, and pronunciation patterns, I would again argue that entries like this fall well within the scope of a dictionary. Even if we accept the premise that Wikipedia might have corresponding articles in all languages for subjects like this (which coverage is, in actuality, spotty at best), I hope we can agree that lexical information like etymologies and pronunciation is not likely to be found in most Wikipedia articles, and is more appropriately included in a dictionary entry.
 * Lastly, and focusing on this specific term rather than the broader issue of WT:NSE, the Japanese term is not quite SOP, and not quite transparently obvious as a translation for . As a one-to-one translation out of the English, a person might more likely come up with  instead, literally  +, , .  Going the other direction from Japanese into English, a more direct rendering would be .  This kind of mismatch looks to me like evidence of idiomaticity.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though translations, etymologies and pronunciations are an important part of Wiktionary, they are not the main reasons for inclusion. Treaty names and such are bound to have "official" translations, and the same goes for other titles, but that doesn't mean we need to include them here. Many Chinese entries for titles have failed RFD, e.g. 扮豬吃老虎, 基度山恩仇記, 清明上河图.
 * Now, about BWC, we should definitely include other terms that it can refer to, so long as it can meet the attestation criteria. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per the proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per justin(r)leung. The Italian Wiktionary used to include even book titles, but IMO these are not words such as belong in a dictionary. The only kind of dictionary I might not be surprised to find this in would be a translation dictionary of the sort that also included (at least as run-in entries) translations for common collocations like lock the door and be startled by smth which we also exclude. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The monolingual JA-JA Daijirin dictionary has an entry for the Japanese name of the BWC. I've also seen, and participated sometimes, in many discussions over the years about terms in either EN or JA that were deemed SOP, but were ultimately kept as translation targets.
 * Do we have any clearly articulable reasoning for excluding things like treaty names, law names, book titles, etc., even though they meet attestation requirements, and even while we keep initialisms like [[BWC]]? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that this would mean we would have to include an almost inifite number of entries? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That certainly didn't stop the community from aiming for “all words in all languages”. :)
 * Bear in mind, I'm not bringing this up and insisting that you get cracking creating all of this. I'm simply trying to suss out what are the actual bounds here, in the absence of any clearly expressed reasoning.  As I've described above, there seems to be plenty of lexical information that would be useful to users and that is specific to what dictionaries provide.  I see a clear use case.  So far, I have not seen any compelling and cogent reason not to include these items.  The arguments so far appear to boil down to we just don't include that kind of content (no clear explanation of why), these aren't "words" per se (arguable), other similar entries have been deleted before (no clear explanation for why), and there are too many (not compelling in my view, when we're already attempting to catalog all words in all languages).
 * If someone has already bothered to create an entry like, and if that entry is correct and useful, what harm is there in keeping it? I fail to see why this merits removal.  What do we gain by not including this entry?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)