Talk:Flash

flash
Is this a valid Chinese word? The anonymous editor who added it mentioned this website in an edit summary, but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as being the only word the Chinese use for the concept. If the Russians used no one would bat an eye, but the Chinese are more familiar with the Latin alphabet and didn't want to transcribe it using Chinese characters and here we are. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no Chinese word the Chinese use for the concept. Wyang (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Wyang, Suzukaze-c asks a legitimate question - how we deal with this type of words, which don't have a Chinese equivalent (yet) but apparently are used in a Chinese context by Chinese. We need a CFI for Chinese. It happens every now and then. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anatoli that it would be useful to have a discussion of this issue. Perhaps editors with some linguistic background can explain how experts regard a foreign word as having been incorporated into a particular language. I can't help thinking it is a bit strange that a term in language B can be regarded as part of language A when it is not even rendered in the usual script of language A. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess the Chinese section in the smallcaps entry flash may be deleted... Dokurrat (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anglicisms in French, German etc. and also Latinism, Germanisms etc. in other language are part of the other language. Just take a look at Category:French terms borrowed from English where you can find for example the French Anglicism "break" and "malware". Of course, foreign words, especially Anglicisms coming from the killer language (i.e. English) and Pseudo-Anglicisms, are sometimes critisied, yet they are included in wiktionary too.
 * Ain't it a matter of WT:RFVN? If used in Chinese, it's Chinese.
 * As for SMUconlaw's "but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese":
 * As for Anatoli T.: Ain't it covered by WT:CFI and "All words in all languages" already? If used and attested in Chinese, then it's attested as Chinese.
 * As for SMUconlaw's second comment: It's not as extreme as Latin script inside of Asian script, but it's similar: Foreign terms often are written in Antiqua in German Fraktur texts. Sometimes even deformed words (like without Latin ending or with k instead of c) are still written in Antiqua. The deformed words aren't Latin (or French or Italian) anymore. Hence they can only be non-words or German words. Usually they are considered to be words, i.e. German words. And like deformed words written in Antiqua are considered to be German, so are non-deformed words (if they aren't mentionings). -84.161.33.233 21:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The relevant policy question is whether a sequence of Latin letters used by Chinese writers in the middle of Chinese-character text can sometimes be considered to be a use in Chinese, especially when no Chinese-character replacement for the word is available. Such an entry can host a Chinese pronunciation, at least. The above anon makes an interesting argument as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No consensus to delete; am sending this to RFV. Please continue the discussion there. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

flash
These words were originally listed at RFD but there was no consensus to delete them as Chinese words. The words are now being relisted here to confirm if they are verifiable in Chinese. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a valid Chinese word? The anonymous editor who added it mentioned this website in an edit summary, but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Delete. Wyang (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as being the only word the Chinese use for the concept. If the Russians used no one would bat an eye, but the Chinese are more familiar with the Latin alphabet and didn't want to transcribe it using Chinese characters and here we are. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no Chinese word the Chinese use for the concept. Wyang (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Wyang, Suzukaze-c asks a legitimate question - how we deal with this type of words, which don't have a Chinese equivalent (yet) but apparently are used in a Chinese context by Chinese. We need a CFI for Chinese. It happens every now and then. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anatoli that it would be useful to have a discussion of this issue. Perhaps editors with some linguistic background can explain how experts regard a foreign word as having been incorporated into a particular language. I can't help thinking it is a bit strange that a term in language B can be regarded as part of language A when it is not even rendered in the usual script of language A. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess the Chinese section in the smallcaps entry flash may be deleted... Dokurrat (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anglicisms in French, German etc. and also Latinism, Germanisms etc. in other language are part of the other language. Just take a look at Category:French terms borrowed from English where you can find for example the French Anglicism "break" and "malware". Of course, foreign words, especially Anglicisms coming from the killer language (i.e. English) and Pseudo-Anglicisms, are sometimes critisied, yet they are included in wiktionary too.
 * Ain't it a matter of WT:RFVN? If used in Chinese, it's Chinese.
 * As for SMUconlaw's "but I do not see the use of isolated English words in Chinese text as necessarily indicating that the words are regarded as Chinese":
 * As for Anatoli T.: Ain't it covered by WT:CFI and "All words in all languages" already? If used and attested in Chinese, then it's attested as Chinese.
 * As for SMUconlaw's second comment: It's not as extreme as Latin script inside of Asian script, but it's similar: Foreign terms often are written in Antiqua in German Fraktur texts. Sometimes even deformed words (like without Latin ending or with k instead of c) are still written in Antiqua. The deformed words aren't Latin (or French or Italian) anymore. Hence they can only be non-words or German words. Usually they are considered to be words, i.e. German words. And like deformed words written in Antiqua are considered to be German, so are non-deformed words (if they aren't mentionings). -84.161.33.233 21:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The relevant policy question is whether a sequence of Latin letters used by Chinese writers in the middle of Chinese-character text can sometimes be considered to be a use in Chinese, especially when no Chinese-character replacement for the word is available. Such an entry can host a Chinese pronunciation, at least. The above anon makes an interesting argument as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No consensus to delete; am sending this to RFV. Please continue the discussion there. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Failed: no verifying citations after a month. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2017–May 2018
"(comics) A superhero". Equinox ◑ 19:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC) If it was a matter of wording, wouldn't it belong to WT:RFC? -84.161.44.190 00:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, we have Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. bd2412 T 01:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I expanded that definition now. I'd say keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Citations meeting WT:FICTION would be useful here. bd2412 T 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE with consideration of WT:FICTION? If it gets attesedt, it get's keeped; if it doesn't get attested, it get's deleted.


 * The definition still needs refinement because several characters, e.g. Superman, have superspeed but are not the Flash. However, keep as an RFD matter (per bd's point), and send to RFV if there's a question of whether or not it meets FICTION. It probably does. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No consensus to delete, after well over half a year. bd2412 T 22:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)