Talk:Geneva Convention

Geneva Convention
This is an encyclopedic concept, and I'm not aware of any attributive use. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The noun is not sum of parts. A convention is a meeting of people, but the Geneva Convention is a treaty.  Proper nouns can have definitions, and this is one that people might very well want to look up. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't say it was a sum of parts. It's not so simple as "Proper nouns can have definitions" and "this is one that people might very well want to look up." People might want to look up movie reviews, and they would be reasonable to want that, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to put it in a dictionary. We don't include A Tale of Two Cities for the same reason as this. If there is no attributive use of an encyclopedic proper noun, it fails CFI. Happily though, if a searcher is looking for this here, the first thing they'll see on the failed search page is a link to Wikipedia, which is what they wanted in the first place. Dmcdevit·t 00:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You've misread CFi; it's only proper names of people and places that must be used attributively in order to be included. Other proper names have no such inclusion requirement.  However, you are correct about CFI, so below I have nominated France for deletion, in accordance with CFI.  --EncycloPetey 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your disagreeing with the policy does not equal my misreading it. The policy is about "Names of actual people, places, and things" (that's the section heading). How you seem to have missed things "things" is not my place to speculate, but given that the policy itself uses "Hoover," "Remington," "Hemburger," "Xerox," "Photoshop," and "Playstation," none of which are people or places, you are incorrect about CFI. This is the proper name of a treaty. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you misread. The section heading isn;t the important part here, but rather your statement that "If there is no attributive use of an encyclopedic proper noun, it fails CFI."  That is extending CFI beyond what it says.  There is no general failure statement in CFI for proper nouns, there is only a failure clause for names of people and places.  Please read CFI; here is the relevant section copied directly from there:
 * A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen”, to describe a particular sort of delicatessen. A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Empire State Building, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included. Similarly, whilst Jefferson (an attested family name word with an etymology that Wiktionary can discuss) and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not.
 * The section on attributive use specifically and carefully states that it applies to a "person or place name". It does not claim to apply to proper names in general, despite the primary section heading.  If you're going to play CFI lawyer, then please read CFI carefully and don't claim things are in there that are not. --EncycloPetey 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I use this jocularly/figuratively all the time. I'm not allowed to do that anymore?  Was it outlawed by the G_____ C_____ or something?  --Connel MacKenzie 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if you use it on a prisoner of war. Sufficiently bad humor may count as torture. Dmcdevit·t 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if it's comparable in suffering to the shutting down of the humor center of the prisoner's brain. —RuakhTALK 02:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dmcdevit, why did you add all those zeds to the Slovene (Slovenian?) translation? –That surely is not the correct spelling; I assumed that it was vandalism (and I still do). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That could've been a typo. bd2412 T 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That’s one hell of a typo. I shan’t be asking him to proofread what I write… † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I intended to harm this dictionary. Why else would I have spend countless hours of my life contributing to it? Or does a stray typo I never would have noticed otherwise negate that? I would consider such vindictive accusations a betrayal of the community spirit necessary for a wiki to function. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All sarcasm aside, for the record: Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keeping your jocular sense is fine, if you can attest it. You haven't even added the sense though, and how does that make the treaty any more than an etymology of that sense, if it is attested? Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was. I said Keep.  This is not advertising, nor spam, nor promotional; it is useful and expected in a dictionary, particularly a multilingual one.  --Connel MacKenzie 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)