Talk:Rwandan Genocide

Rwandan Genocide
Specific historical event. Encyclopaedia material. Equinox ◑ 15:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. 95.144.169.113 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (except for spelling of encyclopedia). DCDuring TALK 14:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia is an alternative spelling here. Donnanz (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why delete? It is a proper noun, and not an SOP. Well okay so it has Rwandan and Genocide in it, but as you can see there is no proper noun for Genocide. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 07:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor should there be. It could also be known as the genocide in Rwanda. Donnanz (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. It could be the genocide of Rwanda but it could NOT be the Genocide of Rwanda. Rwandan Genocide is, in full, a proper noun. None of it is a noun. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 03:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Genocide" and "genocide" are the same thing. Capitalisation does not magically make it a totally different thing. The Eiffel Tower is a tower (small t). Equinox ◑ 14:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I work at Gildersome Rehoming Centre, by your logic, we should include that because of the capital 'r' and capital 'c'! Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, not dictionary material. --Dmol (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, not dictionary material. It's also still an SOP to me: the event was a  in .  The full phrase might pertain to a specific genocide, but it is still SOP: the full phrase has zero idiomaticity, and is fully decomposable into its constituent parts with no loss of meaning.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not SOP. It would have been SOP if it had meant "A genocide involving Rwanda", but it means "the genocide involving Rwanda that blahblah whilst also yadayada". I find these two sentences different. But I agree there is zero figurativeness (==zero idiomaticity?).
 * Also, can anyone explain to me what "not dictionary material" argument means? Why is this not dictionaric enough and First World War is?
 * BTW, Crimean War seems to be a typological equivalent.-Dixtosa (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dixtosa, I happen to agree with you about : that entry is little more than a soft redirect to the Wikipedia article. (The presence of the translation table in that entry is irrelevant; users can get a much more complete list of translations from the left-hand sidebar at the WP article.)
 * I disagree about the First World War entry, but only because that functions more as a dictionary entry should, by linking to synonyms and related terms. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I've been trying to say here. The Rwandan Genocide doesn't mean "a genocide in Rwanda" and does not mean the genocide of Rwanda either. There could theoretically be another genocide in Rwanda, but this is not what is referred to as the Rwandan Genocide. If I had entered Rwandan genocide into this dictionary, with the definition "the genocide of Rwanda" or "any genocide that is in Rwanda", then it would be SOP. But this is not SOP. This is why I've entered this notable term that could have citations, and I know it's not an SOP, because you can't find the definition of the Rwandan Genocide at Rwandan or genocide. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 22:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeCat, I think you're confused: notability is a criterion by which Wikipedia articles are judged. Notability is (mostly) irrelevant for Wiktionary entries.
 * That confusion might be clouding your understanding of what we mean by “sum of parts” (SOP) or by “dictionary material”. Rwandan Genocide is a valid Wikipedia article: the phrase refers to a specific incident, and describes the incident, its background, analysis, and other details.
 * As a proposed dictionary term, however, this is not dictionary material: it is encyclopedia material. This does not belong in Wiktionary any more than Battle of the Alamo or Northern Ireland Electricity Service or Gulf of Tonkin incident.
 * This proposed term is also a sum of parts. The parts,  and, already have entries that fully describe the meaning of the words.  The combination thereof to form the phrase Rwandan Genocide does not do anything more, at the lexical level, than add the one to the other: it is a sum of its parts.  As a term, it refers to a  that was  in nature.  As a social and historical event, it may indeed be something more than that -- but such a detailed explanation is what an encyclopedia is for, not a dictionary.
 * I hope that helps clarify for you why this proposed term, Rwandan Genocide, does not merit inclusion. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering notability for names of specific entities is quite okay; we have no specific rules for names of specific entities as per WT:CFI. We have World War I and World War II. Since we have no rules, everyone can consider criteria that they see most fit for these sort of entries. Rwandan Genocide, being a proper name, is not a semantic sum of parts; nor are United States sum of parts, regardless of being states that are united. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Eirikr, we should delete the entry United States as an SOP. NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 02:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is not an effective argument.
 * Differences between the entry and the  entry (or, indeed, the  entry):
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !
 * Includes pronunciation
 * Includes pronunciation
 * Includes multiple senses, with context
 * Has a single sense
 * Includes synonyms, meronyms, coordinate terms, derived terms
 * Includes WP links
 * Includes WP links
 * }
 * Frankly, any entry at Wiktionary that is a proper noun as the name of an historical event, that consists of only a one-line description and a link to WP, does not add any value as a dictionary entry. Such entries are no more than soft redirects to Wikipedia, which seems like a big indication that the entry would be more appropriate in ... an encyclopedia.
 * Perhaps I misunderstand your basic assumptions of what a dictionary is for? Are you of the opinion that Wiktionary should include entries for things like Battle of the Alamo or Northern Ireland Electricity Service or Gulf of Tonkin incident?  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to your logic, Crimean War is also an SOP and a soft redirect to Wikipedia. But this is not correct. Rwandan Genocide is not an SOP. I could add Rwanda as one of the -nym's. Which -nym would it be? Also, and your point about pronunciation is...? NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You said: "It's also still an SOP to me". I said Rwandan Genocide is not SOP. In your latest response, you said nothing that argues otherwise, nothing that supports the claim that Rwandan Genocide is SOP (semantic sum of parts). About your question, I do not know which names of historical events to include. To prevent any confusion: as for Rwandan Genocide, I abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * }
 * Frankly, any entry at Wiktionary that is a proper noun as the name of an historical event, that consists of only a one-line description and a link to WP, does not add any value as a dictionary entry. Such entries are no more than soft redirects to Wikipedia, which seems like a big indication that the entry would be more appropriate in ... an encyclopedia.
 * Perhaps I misunderstand your basic assumptions of what a dictionary is for? Are you of the opinion that Wiktionary should include entries for things like Battle of the Alamo or Northern Ireland Electricity Service or Gulf of Tonkin incident?  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to your logic, Crimean War is also an SOP and a soft redirect to Wikipedia. But this is not correct. Rwandan Genocide is not an SOP. I could add Rwanda as one of the -nym's. Which -nym would it be? Also, and your point about pronunciation is...? NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You said: "It's also still an SOP to me". I said Rwandan Genocide is not SOP. In your latest response, you said nothing that argues otherwise, nothing that supports the claim that Rwandan Genocide is SOP (semantic sum of parts). About your question, I do not know which names of historical events to include. To prevent any confusion: as for Rwandan Genocide, I abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Eiríkr. - -sche (discuss) 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 18:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)