Talk:environmental protection

RFD discussion: November 2015
Is it an SoP? Also, the Chinese translation (separate topic?). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would keep, just because this is protection of the environment, not protection from the environment. Also, in my pre-lawyering years, I once worked for a "Department of Environmental Protection", which is a fairly common term incorporated into such agency names. bd2412 T 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well environment meanings 'pertaining to the environment', so environment would mean 'protection pertaining to the environment' (not from the environment. It's a bit of an off-topic argument to be honest. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Set phrase. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, so's green grass. What else are you going to call grass that's green? Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can call it Poaceae, of course. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd keep this for its usefulness. This a very widely used term and it's important to keep the central terms right in all languages. I can imagine that somebody would want to check a dictionary to find out the exact translation of "environmental protection" to another language. In Finnish, for example, one could generate at least these alternative terms: ympäristön suojelu. ympäristösuojelu, ympäristönsuojelu, ympäristönvarjelu, ympäristön varjelu. Only one of them is actually used in this sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Toonironic, and because of the general ambiguity of the term noted by BD2412. Pur ple back pack 89  22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

環境保護
As above? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Set phrase. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

自然環境
I am the author. I added (Chinese, Japanese, Korean terms) because its Korean hangeul spelling was included in a Korean frequency list (Frequency lists/Korean 5800) and the Chinese and Japanese forms also exist in some dictionaries. Are they SoP's? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Common collocation but sum of parts. We can add 自然環境 as an example at 自然 and 環境. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see much difference between 環境保護 and 自然環境 (as for CFI), the latter seems even a better candidate for the inclusion. If you use the lemming principle, it's also included (in not so trustworthy) dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well 环境保护 is in the 現代漢語規範詞典, Moedict and zdic, while 自然環境 is in none of them. These are the best lemmings we have for C-C, surely. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I note we do have built environment. We could include its coordinate term natural environment, as well as the Chinese translations. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For Japanese, I note that Daijirin includes the term. And FWIW, the JA Wikipedia and the online Britannica Japan encyclopedia also have entries.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both 自然の環境 and 自然な環境 sound awful. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. Opinions are clearly leaning to keep, and it is vanishingly unlikely that a consensus to delete can emerge. bd2412 T 16:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)