Talk:art collection

RFD discussion: October–December 2022
SOP? GreyishWorm (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * On a glance, yes, SOP, without prejudice to good arguments why it wouldn’t be. (It has vibes of antique shop which I opted to keep.) Fay Freak (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Could this count as a THUB? Don't know any Finnish but the German, Hungarian, and I assume the Swedish are transparent compounds. Delete otherwise. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Err on the side of keeping. This has better pageviews than nonchocolate. It meets extended THUB, but only extended one, so is a weak argument. And it is in Collins. WordNet has it as well, but that is weak. In Wiktionary since 19 December 2005‎. He who does not want to look it up does not have to. There may even be some non-SOP analysis, although I am not able to articulate one at this point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A video of PewDiePie would also get more pageviews than nonchocolate... should we have that too? Geez. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, pageviews are only relevant if we are comparing two kinds of dictionary content. They help us see what users are more likely to loop up in a dictionary, whether bulleted list, art collection, nonchocolate or another one of those 10,000 low-value nonX terms. (Or one of those semiX, pseudoX, antiX, etceteraX?) The entry did not even have translations until very recently. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite your request to not do that again, I feel the urge to once more strike a part of your message ("In Wiktionary since 19 December 2005"), since it has no relevance whatsoever in this debate.
 * As for "He who does not want to look it up does not have to": I might not be actively looking for such an entry, but if I see a link to it in some other entry or in a category, I will be inclined to click on that link, expecting to learn something new. And in such a case these comments by Chuck Entz become relevant:
 * Don't ignore the "well, duh!" factor: if I click on "apricot tree" and discover that our definition consist of "a tree" ... "that's an apricot" ... I feel cheated. The presence of an entry promises that there's content, but there's nothing there that you don't already know from the name of the entry.
 * This is something that happened to me before. You might want to err systematically on the side of inclusion, thinking there's no downside, but there is a downside. PUC – 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In a dictionary with a wide inclusion of translation hubs, it may be the translations that are something new or it may be the hub function that is being served, and users have to reckon with that. I err on the side of keeping entries that someone else has created, someone else has edited without RFDing them, and users have viewed; if the viewers just had idle curiosity, we can't help it. Once a user learns we are very inclusive, they are going to only look up entries when they are really interested in them; that's an easy lesson to learn. Being inclusive helps us serve users who do not suffer from idle curiosity and have some real question to have answered, such as, "how do you best translate this into language X". We do not shy away from including tens of thousands of nonX, pseudoX, semiX, antiX, proX, preX, postX, and Xness entries although there is very little to learn in them, close to nothing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s more of an argument to delete those terms. Is there an antonym for ? Feels appropriate here. Theknightwho (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * dissuasive. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WT:THUB passed by near unanimity. art collection does serve as a translation hub. Closed compounds were excluded from THUB to make the policy more palatable to opposition. art collection as is is a more useful entry than nonchocolate. I am always thinking of utility and users with varied needs, not just mechanical rules which allow us to include a lot of near-useless content and exclude useful one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Abstain, don't care one way or the other. PUC – 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - transparently SOP. Theknightwho (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 08:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, seemingly a clear SOP. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * you forget to delete it Flackofnubs (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * you forget to delete it Flackofnubs (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)