Talk:I need a diaper

I need a diaper
Keep. SoP doesn't count as a valid reason for deletion for phrasebook entries. --Anatoli 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't repeat the arguments in favour of phrasebook entries. Let's decide the fate and CFI as a whole. Please stop adding to individual entries. --Anatoli 04:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need a zillion I need + X's as much as we need I have + X's. We have already an "I need" phrase for interpreter, doctor, toilet paper, dictionary, internet access, taxi, postage stamp, pencil, food and privacy. Necessary things all, but if every noun requires an "I need" and "I have" -sentence, why don't we make them part of "en-noun" -template? They would be automatically generated in every noun entry! Phantastic! --Hekaheka 04:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to be in favor of killing or at least freezing the whole phrasebook until CFI have been defined. --Hekaheka 04:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hekaheka, keeping some common phrases doesn't mean we need to keep every phrase in existence. We don't need "I need X" for every noun in the world, only those that would fit well in the phrasebook, and this is one of them. --Yair rand (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) We don't make I need X part of the "en-noun" template for two reasons:
 * Arguably, not every noun should be mentioned in such phrasebook entries; I need a diaper, I need a dictionary and I need food are naturally common and emergencial situations; I need a DVD player, I need a poodle, I need tears and I need a planet are not common or realistically don't make sense.
 * I need food should be linked at the Derived terms section of food, if anywhere; not in its the inflection line. Other phrasebook derivations of nouns would also be linked from said section.
 * --Daniel. 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we simply have I need, I have etc. and then everybody can want anything without limitations? --Hekaheka 04:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple: That would completely ruin the point of the phrasebook. Certainly, people could try to piece words together to make their own sentences, but that would be a huge waste of time. The point of the phrasebook is so that people don't have to piece things together to know how to say what they want to say. --Yair rand (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly; we don't need the entries I need and I have because we already have the entries need and have as uncomplete sentences that cover all cases. --Daniel. 04:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I want an Aspirin. Seems that Wiki-family needs another sister project "Wikiphrase". --Hekaheka 04:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why exactly would you want to remove a project that so perfectly fits into Wiktionary, with the same goal, which is to help people understand languages? What are the problems with hosting it in the same project, when everything from its ideal format to its needs to its contributors are the same? --Yair rand (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete, and please stop creating these entries until we have worked out some criteria for how Phrasebook entries work. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We should limit the number of "I need..." phrases and I won't support phrasebook if we start get more phrases like I need a condom, etc. I need a diaper is an important phrase but if we have a few then that would be enough. No phrasebook covers ALL combinations with a given pattern. --Anatoli 05:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why was this RFD opened? Everyone is just going through the exact same arguments as given previously. The opposers of inclusion of these entries (many of whom I'm suspicious don't even have the phrasebook's best interests in mind, and probably shouldn't even be participating in the RFD) are still giving the same objections and suggestions. This RFD is pointless. I don't even think phrasebook entries should be included within RFD's scope, they need a separate page for discussing whether they're useful enough. --Yair rand (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Widsith, I disagree with your suggestion of firstly creating the criteria then creating new phrasebook entries; anyway, the WT:PB, in its current development stage, allows the creation and maintenance of both I need a diaper and I need a condom. If there is any reason to delete these or other entries, then I think we should discuss those reasons and improve that policy accordingly. In the meantime, let's do what the RFD template says: "Feel free to edit this entry as normal [...]". --Daniel. 05:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK – it just seems unnecessarily provocative to keep creating entries which, apparently, much of the community finds problematic. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, considerably restrictive actions such as speedy deleting those phrasebook entries or forbidding their creation also seem unnecessarily provocative to people who find these entries desirable. Apparently, a consensus is gradually evolving for particular sets of entries; for instance, I love you and excuse me seem inherently acceptable for our phrasebook under any circumstances; on the other hand, a light meal and an orange juice, please and my name is Joshua are too complex, so not phrasebook-worthy; then, I need a diaper, do you accept credit cards? and I'm eighteen years old and others in the middle ground are still under discussion. I think that said entries that cannot be outright kept or deleted due to the lack of consensus are better kept by now, since future deletion of existing entries would be very easy but future creation and improvement of nonexisting entries would effectively cost more effort. --Daniel. 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If "SoP doesn't count as a valid reason for deletion for phrasebook entries" couldn't we just have any random juxtaposition of words, and be forced to keep them? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this, restore Template:trans:I_need_a_diaper. Not found in any other phrasebooks I can see; perfectly valid as survival language, but due to the potential for an arbitrary number of such entries, best handled through the appendix system. -- Visviva 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. has mere 28 hits, a low number for a phrasebook entry. I admit that Google hits are just a heuristic, proxy indicator, but they do some basic job. Quotations showing that real phrasebooks have the entry could save the entry ("lemmings"?), but as long as they are lacking, nothing saves the entry from deletion. --Dan Polansky 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More data: has zero hits, so does not save the entry. --Dan Polansky 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)