Talk:cave canem

RFD discussion: March–August 2016
Per the discussion at habemus confitentum reum, above. If this is deleted, it should be made an example phrase, but I don't think it merits an entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the first Latin phrases people learn (and often one of the only ones people know). Famous in part because of the well-known and whimsical mosaic used to illustrate the entry.  Often used humorously by English speakers as an alternative to the English, or out of context.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is "One of the first Latin phrases people learn" a reason? How is being famous a reason? This is a dictionary. Let's keep being a dictionary and to try to become Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiquote and every other WikiProject.
 * Delete per the entry itself, which makes an extremely strong case for deletion. Not claiming to be idiomatic because it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The only way it might be worth keeping is in a phrasebook. A Latin phrasebook could perhaps include phrases that have little conversational value, but are typically learned by beginners. I think it's misleading to have it as an entry, as it implies that it is idiomatic/non-SOP, whereas it is clearly the sum of its parts. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A bit like veni, vidi, vici, isn't it? For purposes of comparison, the Chambers English Dictionary has an appendix of famous classical phrases (Latin, Greek, etc.), quite a mixed bag. Equinox ◑ 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment veni, vidi, vici is only here as a famous quotation which is problematic but not hard to resolve. I seem to think it is used as an idiom. Possibly not used as an idiom in Latin though. Originally, at least, it was used entirely literally. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Renard Migrant. I wouldn't argue that e.g. cs-wiki should have "this is a book" or "I am your English teacher" either. I also find it funny that we should have cave canum but not beware of dog/beware of the dog/beware the dog; OTOH if we found the latter worthwhile having, the former might merit entry as a translation target (provided it's actually commonly used, I've never seen it till now but then what do I know). --Droigheann (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we not have a Latin phrasebook? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a little bit of usage of it, italicized, in English texts, so maybe it could be keepable as an English entry rather than a Latin one:, . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to contest this being English, but I'm gradually finding out anything, just anything can be called an English term here, so why not? --Droigheann (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Droigheann]}, thanks for pointing out burčák; its citations are not durable and the first two citations are mentions (of the Czech word, not even of an English word), so I've RFVed it. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: these common Latin phrases are found in most English-language dictionaries: for example, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, the American College Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and Funk & Wagnalls. What is the rationale for making Wiktionary more restrictive?  As has been stated for years, there's no concern about entries taking up too much space.  Nor is the fact that there could be an encyclopedia article written about a word or phrase a justification for deleting it.  That would simply mean that people wouldn't know what it meant when encountering it, if they looked it up here.  Should Wiktionary define common phrases, or prevent people from understanding them?  P Aculeius (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if you spoon-feed people meanings, it stops them learning. People need to be able to string two or more words together in order to speak a language. If you don't know what means in French, sure we could define it as a noun, but if they learn the words  and  and how to put them together to make  they learn much more. A bit like how memorizing the times tables up to 12 * 12 like we did has its place but doesn't help you with 13 * 11 because it's not on the list and you haven't been taught how to multiply, just what some of the common answers are. In general the space argument isn't a very well liked one. As one person put it, we have plenty of space for pictures of kittens if that's the route we want to go down. This is a dictionary not Wikiquote or Wikipedia and I think we should stay being a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You call it spoon-feeding, I call it being a dictionary. Apparently most professional dictionary writers over the last century agree with me.  There's a reason why common Latin phrases are found in dictionaries.  They're found and used by English-speakers who don't know what they mean when strung together, or why anyone would bother.  Under cave we have entries for seven languages, including nineteen senses in English alone.  canem brings up Latin and Welsh; eliminate the "derived term" here and you're left with the not very helpful choice between "accusative singular of canis" or "first-person plural imperfect/conditional of canu".  A trip back to "cave" under the assumption that both words have to be Latin, since one of them can only be Latin or Welsh and the other one can't be Welsh, and someone who clicks under the hidden "quotations" just might find the phrase defined there.  So what exactly is the helpfulness of sending people to search two different words for two meanings that might just go together and make sense, as opposed to having one entry that says what the phrase means in English?  Especially if you're already defining it in a "quotation" under one of them (I'll quickly point out that a bare attribution to Petronius is hardly a quotation, any more than you would cite "goodbye" to Anne Robinson)?  And without the "derived term" or so-called "quotation" the reader would have to string together "second-person singular present imperative of caveō" and "accusative singular of canis" in order to derive a meaning for the phrase.  Two more trips to two more pages, even assuming that the reader can keep all those grammatical terms in mind while trying to sort out what the phrase means in toto.  All just in order to save the 432 bytes of space that "cave canem" takes up, distracting Wiktionary users with its blasted simplicity and ease of use!  P Aculeius (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the English entry cave canem, I'm disputing the Latin entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as phrasebook, delete otherwise. A dictionary isn't needed to understand this phrase, only knowledge of and  is sufficient. Aside, though, I think that mosaic is beautiful, please keep it. —CodeCat 23:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would certainly reject PA's "one of the first Latin phrases people learn" as a keep argument. Reminds me of Daniel Carrero once creating a bizarre entry for some English-classroom phrase like where is the pencil (I can't remember exactly what it was); nobody was convinced by that one. Equinox ◑ 14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete at this time. The question of whether this should be a phrasebook entry or some other kind of entry is an editorial matter, not a deletion matter. bd2412 T 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)