Talk:Guardian

Правда
I don't think any of these newspaper names meets the WT:BRAND requirements of WT:CFI, and the two Russian ones are defined in a way that sounds far more encyclopedia-like than dictionary-like. That could be fixed, of course, but they'd still not be valid dictionary entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Guardian already has three citations that don't say it is a newspaper. I could add more if you want. I'll see what I can do for the Sun. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't say it explicitly, but it's pretty easy to gather from the citations that it's a newspaper, or periodical of some kind. See WT:BRAND and Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Известия and Правда are extremely important relics of the 20th century and the USSR. As you noted, problems in the definition can be fixed. Известия is usually mistaken for a feminine singular noun by Westerners, and students bungle its declension. Известия and Правда appear frequently in Soviet literature, and there are famous jokes and puns made about them. Правда does not masquerade as a different gender or number, but it is still an exceptionally important brand name and Soviet icon. —Stephen (Talk) 17:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm only nominating them for deletion here, not at Wikipedia. Being culturally important isn't a criterion for inclusion, nor is being mistaken for feminine singular. Are they mentioned in Russian-language literature in contexts where it isn't clear from the discussion that they're newspapers? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think it obvious they are brands, and WT:BRAND is for RFV, not for RFD, as WT:BRAND is specified in terms of existence or non-existence of quotations meeting certain criteria. We can at best vote about whether provided quotations meet WT:BRAND. On a related note, I would like to see the following part of WT:BRAND gone, an unlikely wish to be fulfilled I am afraid: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent." --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Keep (all words in all languages). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all above. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please cite all of these properly, because they are likely to go right to RFV from here. Most of the Sun and Guardian citations are questionable, unless you think they are not mentioning the company when they mention the company, as is required by WT:BRAND.

The newspaper sense of Правда should be moved to the entry правда. Is there no common-noun sense of известия? – I am curious about its etymology. —Michael Z. 2014-03-25 20:02 z 
 * As the etymology section of says, it's the plural of . I don't quite see why a proper-noun meaning should be moved to a lower-case spelling, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I just added that etymology.


 * Variations in capitalization shouldn’t be used to split up an entry. If someone sees ИЗВЕСТИЯ in print and looks it up, they should be able to read all definitions on a single web page. —Michael Z. 2014-03-25 20:36 z 
 * So Polish and polish should be on the same page? We decided against that years ago. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why we have . — Ungoliant (falai) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it doesn’t serve readers at all to have to flip back and forth just to untangle the differences between entries like aboriginal and Aboriginal, wherein closely-related senses have both meaning and capitalization that varies over time, place, and according to style. Each is an alternative capitalization of the other, which defies common sense and understanding. I’d be surprised to learn of any discussion where decided this is a good idea.


 * Secondly, may neatly solve some problem, but not this one. A reader looking at got has to load and read six more pages to determine that five of them have nothing for her. And a reader following a link to at might not even see the note nine screenfuls higher that suggests he consult an index of over a dozen pages because one of them might contain AT.


 * This compares very poorly to the usability of print dictionaries that put strings of the same letters adjacent, regardless of capitalization, diacritics, hyphens, spaces, or punctuation. We ought to do better. —Michael Z. 2014-03-25 23:09 z 

Kept. If there are questions about these meeting WT:BRAND, that is a RfV matter. bd2412 T 21:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)