Talk:總統蔣公逝世紀念日

RFD discussion: May–September 2022
Delete The Chinese term means "President Chiang's Death Memorial Day". While the term does have an entry in the (see this), given by the dictionary's official status, it could be a addition promoting the leader's cult of personality during the martial law era. Apart from this entry, there is no idiomatic meaning for the term, and can be considered as a sum of part of 總統+蔣公+逝世+紀念日.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Frivolous. 總統蔣公逝世紀念日,  Washington's Birthday,  Martin Luther King Jr. Day, 태양절, etc. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Then isn't that both the entries of Washington's Birthday and Martin Luther King Jr. Day suffer from the same problem of SOP? They are simply combinations of Washington's+Birthday and Martin Luther King Jr.+Day. In particular, as long as one knows the backgrounds and lives of themselves, they can understand the terms are holidays commemorating Washington's birthday and MLK's activism without further idiomatic understanding.
 * 태양절 has idiomatic meaning, as "태양" involves a variation of Kim Il-sung's name. One won't understand what 태양절 is celebrating until it is known that "태양" is referring to Kim's name. It therefore passes WT:LIGHTBULB.
 * By the way, I have no intention in imputing Ministry of Education Mandarin Chinese Dictionary's authoritativeness (it's actually a useful tool in attesting Chinese terms). Just like how the 1971 edition Xinhua Dictionary is filled with Cultural Revolution related terms, I suspect the term's inclusion is similar to the case of Xinhua Dictionary (thanks to special political situation) as well.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have amended the definition to make it clearer that the term isn't SOP. 教育部國語辭典 does seem to have some really encyclopaedic stuff, such as long government department names that aren't even correct anymore (if they ever were - 852 hits vs 100k for the current name), the full names of historical figures and (my personal favourite) an assortment of historical treaty names. Oh, and don't forget the novels, too, complete with aliases..., Theknightwho (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that this was a public holiday in Taiwan, which is reasonably obvious but not actually derivable from the definitions of the constituent parts. Theknightwho (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Theknightwho. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Question I like to ask why the term is ? Throughout all these parts, I think only 蔣公 will need extra understanding that this is the official honorific title of Chiang Kai-shek.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not strictly derivable that it was a public holiday, and it’s certainly not derivable that it’s a former public holiday or where it applied (think about someone who doesn’t know who Chiang Kai-shek was, as we don’t have entries for the full names of individuals). I completely understand your concerns about propaganda, but I think qualifying it by making it clear where it applied and when should be enough to ensure we’re not seen as endorsing any particular view. Theknightwho (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, does you mean that as long as a term represents a public holiday, then it is not derivable from it's sum of parts?
 * Also, I have no prejudice on terms related to propaganda. But rather, as the term only appears on an official dictionary (which is susceptible to editorial pressure), I argued that the term may fall outside of WT:LEMMING.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was 總統蔣公逝世假日 I'd call it SOP, though admittedly I can see why they didn't call it that... WT:LEMMING should be seen as equivalent to a WP essay - it can be (and frequently is) overridden if consensus is that a term is SOP, but it's a prompt to say that the appearance of a term in another dictionary should make us take a bit of a closer look, in case there's something we've missed. In this case you're probably right about why it's in 教育部國語辭典, but I just happen to think it's inclusion-worthy anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the fact that it was a public holiday would not be derivable from the sum of its parts. I also think that its date, April 5, while obvious from the fact of when Chiang died, is probably not derivable from the sum of its parts. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD kept. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 06:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)