Talk:Celtic studies

Sum of parts
Looks dreadfully sum of parts. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's translated as a single word in many languages and it's good to have a placeholder for it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it were a valid reason, which I dispute, they could go at . Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many European languages have different terms for both. I suspect that 1) there could be some subtle difference in meaning or usage 2) many of those X studies form lack the X-ology counterpart 3) X studies is a far more frequent term. With that in mind it would make sense to make it a full-blown entry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

RfD discussion
Sum of parts. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep "* studies" as translation target: Czech is keltistika, which is a single-word non-compound. Many European languages have a similar single-word non-compound formation. See also English studies, which has Czech anglistika, German Anglistik and Russian англистика. Keeping all the translations on Celtology is inferior per ; let us use the most common and most naturally sounding term of English. A similar discussion with not too many participants is at Talk:Indo-European studies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Translations can go at . Renard Migrant (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep anything any academic discipline of the form ____ studies Even if they weren't translation targets, the definition of them is not easily divined. Pur ple back pack 89   18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I said "keep anything of the form ____ studies", I was specifically referring to academic discipline. I have altered my vote accordingly Pur ple back pack 89   00:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep any drivel that anyone wants. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, don't complain if we end up with beer studies or furniture studies. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling won't help your case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That does not make him wrong. --Romanophile (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obviously sum‐of‐parts. We could also make African studies, Germanic studies, Romance studies, Slavic studies, and so on. Combing these terms does not create a new or unexpected meaning. --Romanophile (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for the sake of one-word translations. Might not occur to people to look these up under much less idiomatic Celtology. --Droigheann (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Question:
 * We don't create non-idiomatic multi-word entries in other languages simply because they happen to map to a single English word. Instead, we add the multi-word phrase to the relevant translation table in the corresponding English entry, linking individually to each of the multiple words.
 * Given this practice, I am confused why we think it makes sense to create and maintain non-idiomatic multi-word entries in English, simply because they happen to map to a single word in some other language.
 * Could someone please explain the rationale for this? &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we only put translation tables on English entries, and you can't put a translation table on a page that doesn't exist. While I don't think these entries are generally very helpful for a wiki-based multi-language dictionary like this one (outside a few set phrases, would someone think to look up the page on non-idiomatic English phrase on the off-chance that it has an idiomatic translation in their target language?), our search capabilities aren't really good enough to let us implement a more elegant solution to this problem. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Translation tables appear to have become a distraction. My point is that when EN word A correlates to non-idiomatic OTHERLANG phrase B C D, we list the OTHERLANG phrase with separate links to the individual entries B C D, and we do not create a single OTHERLANG entry for B C D .  When OTHERLANG word W correlates to non-idiomatic EN phrase X Y Z, I believe we should likewise list the EN phrase with separate links to the individual entries X Y Z , and not create a single EN entry for X Y Z .  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While it's something that isn't frequently done, I don't really think there's anything in our current interpretation of the rules that would prevent it being done. Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  14:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what idiomaticity is about? &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 20:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Eirikr Rationale:
 * Enable Czech-to-German traversal via the English hub or the middleman: anglistika --> English studies --> Anglistik; ditto for any two non-English languages. This naturally works for kočka --> cat --> Katze.
 * Answer the following question via a page with a familiar format: what are all single-word translations into various languages of the term "English studies"?
 * Is argued for "English studies", works for translation target in general. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a language researcher's question, not one that would occur to a general user. Why should we go out of our way to address such a question. Let such researchers use doggedness or Python skills, theirs or their RA's, to scrape the answer from multiple wikis. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Why should we go out of our way to address such a question" Why not?  Why limit ourselves to what we can do?  And please don't say, "well, we'd have to do it on a whole lot of other pages."  This being kept doesn't necessarily mean we have to create or edit a whole bunch of pages; we can just ease it in as the need arises.  Artificially limiting what we do will just make us a little-used backwater. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   04:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We are a little-used backwater. I have had some hope that we could get out of that by making sure that we put some effort into attracting some normal users and contributors &emdash; or at least not driving them away (eg, User:ReidAA). Instead we get a steady flow of low-value SoP and nearly SoP entries tiresomely advocated by lawyers and non-contributors and justified by imaginary academic research projects. At one time we had a contributor easing us into Gregg and Pitman Shorthand sections, which I always thought should be kept permanently as a testimony to foolish grand projects. DCDuring TALK 04:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Normal users" and "normal entries" is subjective. In my experience, we have driven away some productive and talented editors into languages they could do well by deleting their edits. They have either gone away completely or moved to languages few people care or know about. Inter-language translations is an advantage Wiktionary boasts about and we should keep it that way. And what seems to be an unidiomatic term to some is a must-have, idiomatic term to others, including known dictionary publishers. It's one of the reason I advocate translation target entries and Lemming test method. Term [[gas station]] hasn't gone through RFD but it may be targeted in the future, just like [[vegetable garden]] or [[apple tree]] in the past. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Kept, clear absence of consensus to delete. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unstriking. I hesitated to unstrike, but we should give opposers the chance. This entry was posted to RFD on 20 January 2015; I think at least a month should pass before this gets closed. On this page, pro-deletion posts includes those by Renard Migrant, DCDuring (posted as sarcastic keep), and Romanophile. I would prefer DCDuring strikes out his keep and posts a regular boldfaced delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Our rule is seven days, not thirty. It doesn't take that long for all interested parties to weigh in, and it is unlikely at this point that a clear consensus for deletion will arise. If you want to keep it open, keep it open, but it's a waste of time. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the rule for "no consensus for deletion" tends to be month as per Requests for deletion/Header: "Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'." Boldface mine. The seven days are for deletion supported by consensus.
 * I think "no consensus" is the actual case here: DCDuring's keep is sarcastic, and -sche and Equinox seem to be opposed to this entry as per WT:RFD below (why did not they vote?). I am not saying that the time of your closure is really wrong, merely that based on the text I quoted, waiting is best, also considering that this nomination has turned some people on, including the nominator who seemed to create furniture studies in anger. DCDuring was so worked up that he attacked me by posting things associated with me and not related to this nomination. Given the heat, I think it best to let people more than enough time to weigh in. We may even seem some more keeps, e.g. from the creator of the entry Ivan Štambuk, from TAKASUGI Shinji who added ja:ケルト学 and fr:celtologie to the entry or from ‎Vahagn Petrosyan who added e.g. hy:կելտագիտություն to the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kept again It's now been 31 days, as it's now 20 February by UTC. It is unlikely that there will emerge a consensus for deletion if the discussion is continued any longer. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   00:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)