Talk:Ampere定律

RFD discussion
I have archived all of the related discussions here; I will place links to this central archive on the other talk pages. — Beobach 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin主义 et al
Darwin主义者, Einstein相对论, Esperanto主义者, et al ==

Regardless of whether these are SopS, we should not include all possible combinations of Chinese and English together unless it is a fixed expression, but this is not the case with these entries. Strong delete. Tooironic 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A question, are these multi-word entries? If not shouldn't they be at RFV as they might be attestable despite the bizarreness. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * delete. No, they are not. 主义 -ism, 主义者 -ist, even 相对论 (theory of relativity) is not to be used this way in standard Mandarin but 爱因斯坦广义相对论 (Àiyīnsītǎn guǎngyì-xiāngduìlùn), adding 广义 (general or wide sense). 广义相对论 is commonly used with 爱因斯坦 (Einstein), less common just 相对论. --Anatoli 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Esperanto主义者 gets six hits, all Wiktionary related so that wouldn't pass an RFV. The others are very rare as well. Delete just for that reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned that these are considered Chinglish, each of the entries could be done in proper Mandarin in Hanzi only, without Roman letters. Usage of Roman letters in Chinese is restricted. Foreign names can be written just once in Roman letters for clarity. Anatoli 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, for a full list of these bizarre entries check out Category:Mandarin_nouns, they're right at the top due to incorrect formatting. Someone should try talking to User talk:123abc to get him/her to see some sense. I've tried on multiple occasions but failed. Tooironic 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Words_which_mix_scripts
 * Yes, User:123abc, I am aware of that category, but those entries are reserved for actual words and not just random combinations of English and Chinese. E.g., AA制, T恤 and 69式 are all fixed terms because you can't change those forms by replacing the English letters with Chinese characters, however Euclid几何, Lenin主义, cookie饼, etc, are not - they should be replaced by entries which are entirely in Chinese. Tooironic 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It has long been Wiktionary's policy to require a term or phrase to have at least three attested examples of use, in order to be included on Wiktionary. The original contributor attempted to use Google hits to satisfy this requirement.  The problem is that while Google is an excellent language research tool, it often requires an expert to decipher the search results.  My initial impression is that the above Google hits are mostly false positives, meaning that they by and large don't constitute valid examples usage by a typical native speaker.  Tooironic's point about T恤 is well taken.  One way to demonstrate this is to refine the search.  For example, if you were to search for the term with the Google news tab, as opposed to the more generic web tab, you would find hits for terms such as T恤, but not for Euclid几何.  -- A-cai 13:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * References for Euclid几何:
 * Google hits: "Euclid几何"
 * Baidu hits: "Euclid几何"
 * It seems from a quick google books search that Euclid几何 is clearly attested and idiomatic. Keep Euclid几何 and move the rest to RFV. --Yair rand 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, we seem to be making progress. 123abc, I get the impression that there was something about my response that you did not fully understand.  Please let me know if this is the case, and I will attempt to clarify.  So, Euclid几何 does seem to have passed one of Wiktionary's criterion for inclusion, attestation.  The problem is that the phrase still seems to be a sum of parts entry.  These types of entries are not allowed on Wiktionary.  It would be the same as if someone tried to create an entry for blue bicycle.  Unfortunately, by that logic, Euclidean geometry should not be allowed on Wiktionary either.  -- A-cai 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * However, "Euclidean geometry" is already entered in Wiktionary. Anyway, "Euclidean geometry/Euclid几何" are not harmful, they are convenient for the users. user talk:123abc

RfV them all. BTW, shouldn’t they be written as &c., even if they are kept? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the ones that can't possibly pass, but RFV the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

alpha射线
The Chinglish continues. All of these have commonly used forms which are entirely in Chinese. Again, we should not include all possible combinations of Chinese and English together unless it is a fixed expression, but this is not the case with these entries. Strong delete. Tooironic 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Delete all. And block user if he persists in adding more. SemperBlotto 08:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the fact that these phrases all have equivalents in Chinese script, however I think blocking this person is slightly premature. Maybe Tooironic could try to talk to him in Chinese? I just think we shouldn't take rash actions, before we get to know what his take is on this. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The unattestable ones should of course be deleted. But if they are word and in use, keep or move to RFV. Mixing wo scripts isn't an automatic reason to delete, but my Google searches show that a lot of these are way short of meeting our CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to RFV. --Yair rand 05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * References
 * Google hits
 * Google books
 * Baidu hits
 * Baidu Zhidao
 * "e-mail address" is already entered in Wiktionary. Anyway, "e-mail address/e-mail地址" are not harmful, they are convenient for the users. user talk:123abc


 * Look, I'm getting impatient. They should all be deleted, pure and simple. We don't have entries for chang Wall of China, Niǔ York, karaOK, super shìchǎng or feng水. Why? Because they're ridiculous. There is a reason why none of these words, in these forms, are in any dictionaries. And search engine hits are NOT references, they just show you how prevalent Chinglish is online. I would be more forgiving if all of these entries created by this user were in the correct formatting, but they're not, and the user has made no attempt to rectify this after multiple messages. If something isn't done I'm one hundred percent qingchu that he/she will keep doing this and us Mandarin contributors will be left to pick up the pieces (i.e. clean-up a few hundred pages when we could be doing something useful). Tooironic 10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should "e-mail address" be deleted as well???


 * Keep mix-script entries if idiomatic and attested. No comment on format of contributions. DAVilla 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

...and...

69式性交 et al.
A/D转换器, CD-ROM扩展结构, CD-ROM播放器, CD-V视盘, CD-i光盘, CD-i扇区, CD-i播放器

More more more more Chinglish. Yay! Isn't this fun? All sum of parts. DELETE. Tooironic 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is "Chinglish"? Is "CD播放器/CD播放机 (CD player)" "Chinglish"?
 * Google hits: CD播放器
 * Google Books: CD播放器, are they Chinglish books???

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "CD player" sum of part??? Should "CD player" be deleted as well???

CD-i播放机 et al
CD-i数字图像, CD-i数字音频, CD扩展, CD盒, C格式, I型光标, Mac操作系统, CD扩展

Chinglish SoP Part Two. DELETE. Tooironic 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alps山 & Alzheimer病
Redundant. Chinglish. DELETE. (Polite question: How many more weeks will I have to waste my time with monitoring this user's vandalism until something is done about it?) Tooironic 07:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an expert in being impolite, that was not a polite question. If you're going to be direct, just do it. :p — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not Alzheimer病/Alzheimer's disease??? Is Alzheimer's disease a "vandalism"???
 * AFAICT all of these should be at RFV. If I knew more Mandarin I would comment more, but I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Books: Alps山, Are they Chinglish books???

I think that the "Chinglish" character of these terms is not a reason to delete them, but a very strong reason to keep them (when they are actually used). Obviously, they are very special set phrases. Lmaltier 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep per above. DAVilla 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion of cookie饼
As with WT:RFV. This one seems to have slipped through the cracks, having been tagged RFD, but not listed there (only mentioned in passing in another section). It also seems to be the last of its kind. I bring it to RFV rather than RFD because the consensus was to accept the terms if they could be verified. I can't find anything on Google Books. — Beobach 02:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * RFV failed. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion (2)
In looking through WT:RFC, and trying to clean up some of the oldest messes there, I found this discussion of "Chinglish" terms, which closed with the note "send to RFV". The RFV discussion, in turn, ended with Ruakh commenting: "A number of these entries have been deleted already, mostly pursuant to RFD discussions. Those that haven't, are hereby kept. If there are any specific ones that you think are not attestable, feel free to RFV them individually; but some of these get hundreds of b.g.c. hits, and overall it looks like these should have been RFD'd rather than RFV'd". I have searched for e-mail地址 and found that it, as discussed, was rightly kept as attested. I have found only one book that uses Ampere定律, however: I therefore (re-)nominate it. — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed.

RFV discussion of pizza饼
This may be attestable: I find two books (1, 2) which use it. It needs a third, though. (Once this discussion is archived: cf Ampere定律.) — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find one quotation on Usenet. If someone adds the quotations to the entry, the word will barely pass. - -sche 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I added all three citations to Citations:pizza饼, but the last one doesn't seem to support the definition we have. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-fails with only two citations? - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed, because it seems only two of the citations support the sense given. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)