Talk:is it going to rain

Deletion discussion

 * ''This entry was nominated for deletion but not deleted. Here's the discussion: Kappa 02:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It gives itself and nothing else as the definition. Therefore it should definitely be deleted. 64.192.107.242 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of these entries are kept because they have translations. It is moot whether this is the function of a dictionary. Jonathan Webley 21:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be anything idiomatic or unpredictable about this particular phrase and its translations. Kappa 00:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Idioms with the abstract subject it can be tricky to predict in other languages. In Russian, for example, "it’s raining" is дождь идёт (lit., 'rain goes'). But the question Is it going to rain? would not be the logical дождь будет ходить? ('rain will go?'), but rather будет дождь? ('will be rain?') or кажется дождь собирается? ('seems rain is gathering?'). —Stephen 01:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Translation into Hungarian will also be tricky, since there is no future tense in that language! --EncycloPetey 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all very well and good, but in the past the unintuitiveness of translations has not served as sufficient justification. This entry will probably be deleted decided by coin flip. Davilla 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Edited. Davilla 11:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Hungarian can indicate the future tense periphrastically with the word fog. For Is is going to rain?, I would say esni fog? ('to-fall will?'). —Stephen 01:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the point of this thread. The translation into Hungairan (or other languages) is idiomatic, and not a simple translation of the component words. The result is unexpected grammar, unless you happen to know the expression in that language. --EncycloPetey 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, there's no future tense in English either, it being either inferred by context or expressed by the "present" tense of verbs meaning 'to will', 'to go', etc. In addition, weather and impersonal verbs are treated specially in many languages, and on that ground we'd need entries for it rained yesterday, it is raining, it should have rained, etc.  The grammar of 'to rain' should be explained on rain, and the grammar of the words that translate it should be translated on their respective pages.   That said, this is keepable as a phrasebook entry (though I would really like to see a special style or infobox or something distinguishing the phrasebook from main articles...).  —Muke Tever 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a perfectly acceptable and certainly useful phrasebook entry. &mdash; Hippietrail 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September 2017–February 2018
Survived RFD in 2006. Back then, of course, WT was run by amateurs...--WF on Holiday (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It has a large number of translations. DonnanZ (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So does "It has a large number of translations". --WikiTiki89 20:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsure, keep-ish. Usually, I like to keep some phrasebook entries, and I like the arguments given at Talk:is it going to rain., would you like to check if this passes your lemming heuristic? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? I see no good arguments there. Even Stephen's first argument is not so great. Every language has a way of saying "it is raining", a way of speaking about future events, and way of turning a statement into a yes-or-no question. The only potential reason to keep this is for the phrasebook. --WikiTiki89 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could have a phrasebook entry is it going to ... for questions like that. (obviously, including but not limited to is it going to rain, is it going to snow, is it going to explode and whatever) Would it work for all languages, or maybe not? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You'd essentially just end up translating "will" or the future tense (e.g. in French, "il pleuvra?" = "it will-rain"?). Equinox ◑ 21:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep using the lemming heuristic for phrasebook:, i.e. multiple phrasebooks have the phrase. The phrase is probably not terribly useful, but using the heuristic allows us to put some algorithmic or mechanical limit on inclusion of phrasebook items, with the risk of overinclusion. also finds three independent phrasebooks, and would be included using the heuristic.  suggests exclusion. I don't like template-like entries like is it going to ...; as a user, I much prefer to extract the pattern from a fuller example. Thus, I like to include I am twenty years old while excluding other examples of the same pattern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Make it a phrasebook entry. It will fit well with its companions. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was already in the phrasebook as per the category present; I now added the gaudy phrasebook box as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Barytonesis: What is the rationale? Is the vote based on policy? (It does not necessarily have to be, just asking.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very wary of these phrasebook entries; I consider them outside the scope of a dictionary, and don't want to have them in the mainspace. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * RFD kept as no consensus to delete. For deletion: WF on Holiday, maybe Wikitiki89, Barytonesis. For keeping: Daniel Carrero, Dan Polansky, maybe Hekaheka. Abstaining: probably Equinox. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)