Talk:furniture studies

Am I missing something as to why this is not SOP? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect this entry was created as a form of protest for the inclusion and non-deletion of entries similarly regarded as SOP, such as [[Celtic studies]], as seen further up the page. &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the arguments made for and against Celtic studies would apply. I suspect that any change in expressed opinion or in the ratio of pros to cons will reflect only that this is a less traditional field, smaller, and excessively trade-schoolish. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Documenting one-word translations seemed to be a concern in the discussion of "Celtic studies". are there comparable one-word translations for "furniture studies"? bd2412 T 21:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How will we find out without keeping this until we have had at least one active contributor in all agglutinative languages pass on that question? What about the poor user who wouldn't find this newish filed in our hoary, tradition-bound competitors? How else would an academic researcher find how this would be translated in Uighur and Navajo? or compare the nomenclature of traditional fields with novel ones across languages? Am I sensing extra-linguistic considerations? DCDuring TALK 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's with that agglutinative straw man? No-one wants to use xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłs ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") as a reason for creation of he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant. As per Beer parlour/2014/July: If we were after a formal strict set of criteria for translation targets, we would take care to handle these sorts of languages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd normally say Keep, because Celtic studies was kept. On the other hand, this isn't exactly like Celtic studies per se, and it was clearly created to prove a point. Pur ple back pack 89   21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? The entry stands on its own. It has been attested as well. Trying to find what we will and won't include by examining real cases seems perfectly appropriate. If we keep this, then it would be very efficient to add comparable entries by getting some on-line catalogs of schools and adding them en masse instead of whimsically. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I continue to feel that creating non-idiomatic multiword SOP entries in language A just because there's a one-word term for that in language B is a poor justification. C.f. ja:w:椅子学, or, demonstrating the existence of a term for the Japanese academic field of "chair studies".  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Send to fucking RFV. No way we are going to let "Celtic studies" and friends pass because of in-voting, and then dispute this because we don't like the attitude of the creator. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already been cited, though one might question the cites. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, strong keep then, just to make the X-studies-ists realise how stupid they are, or dig the hole deeper. Equinox ◑ 03:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for vacuous SoP entries many wouldn't be able to contribute. Paraphrasing SoP terms for the English definitions and doing calque translations seems to be as much as we can get out of some folks. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Equinox, you need to chillax. It's not the end of the world that ____ studies entries are being kept.  I'd argue it's probably better in the long run for all concerned.  RfV is a waste of time, because each of the ___ studies entries I've seen could be cited in about 30 seconds.  Also, what you mean by "in-voting". Pur ple back pack 89   16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "If it weren't for vacuous SoP entries many wouldn't be able to contribute.": Seems pretty implausible to me, given what I've seen. Celtic studies was created by Ivan Štambuk, the bulk of whose contribution is Serbo-Croatian. English studies was created by me, and the bulk of my mainspace contribution is Czech. I created English studies because of the utility that I immediately recognized; I suspect the same is true of Ivan Štambuk's creation of Celtic studies. DCDuring's Measles virus seems of much less lexicographical interest to me than Celtic studies and English studies; some would probably even argue that Measles virus is sum of parts; I would argue that it duplicates Wikispecies and that it brings close to zero value to Wiktionary users. That said, I do not propose Measles virus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Equinox and per, I don't know, COALMINE or something. Inverse COALMINE? Keep anything that another language has a single word for? Is that what we want to do? - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a straw man: as user -sche knows, no-one is proposing to include all English words for which another single language has a single word. User -sche has made this straw man before, and I pointed out that this is a strawman before to him, but as we can see, to no avail. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly recognized by supporters of the translation target criterion that agglutinative languages would not be included in translation target considerations, so that user -sche's favorite xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłs ("he had had in his possession a bunchberry plant") would not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The translation target argument would only apply if there were any translations here (beyond simply a hypothetical agglutinative furniturestudies). Incidentally, we have an article on Celtology, so why do we still need Celtic studies as a place to keep translations? Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You could propose moving the translations on WT:RFM, or boldly move them. Maybe I'll boldly move them. I suppose the reason they're at Celtic studies is that it is significantly more common a phrase than Celtology, and it makes sense to have translations in the most common entry which exists — but that argument does become rather circular when the reason for keeping Celtic studies despite its SOPness is that translations need a place to live. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is not circular. The translations should be on a term that actually gets used, not on one that is so rare that it would be considered by many to be an error. . --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Smurrayinchester, or anyone else, could you explain why it makes sense to have non-idiomatic multi-word SOP English terms as translation targets for one-word foreign-language terms, when we don't do the inverse? I.e., we don't create non-idiomatic multi-word SOP foreign-language terms for one-word English terms.  Instead, we list the translation as the non-idiomatic multi-word SOP foreign-language phrase, and link through to the individual terms that compose that phrase.  I really don't understand why we don't do this for translating other-language terms into English.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 08:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because English entries have translation tables, so they serve as their own translation targets, while non-English entries don't, so they can't. If you want to know the Portuguese translation of a Japanese term that doesn't have a non-SOP English translation, you're out of luck, currently- unless you have an SOP translation target to hang a translation table onto. Of course, given the variation in concepts between languages, this has at least the potential to almost exponentially complicate things. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an argument for more complete jawikt and ptwikt or for Wikidata. Do we even still have bots doing automatic entries? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not because of the SOP argument (very clearly, some SOP phrases are English terms), but because I cannot imagine that it can be considered as a single term in English. Although note that, in my opinion, the translation target argument is not a good argument, and that there is no reason to forbid translation tables for non-English words (in some cases, they are needed, and they are the rule for de.wikt). The important thing is that each of these translations should be added by somebody knowing both relevant languages. Lmaltier (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as sum of parts until someone comes up with a sincere reason to keep this. In particular, this entry does not appear to be translation target: there are no translations in the entry. The creation of this entry appears to be pointing, a bit like the creation of himand by user -sche who now joins this pointing exercise by writing "Keep per Equinox and per, I don't know, COALMINE or something" in boldface above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)