Talk:lijst met opsommingstekens

RFD discussion: September 2022–February 2023
Dutch SOP. PUC – 14:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Never seen something as SOP as this. Delete. Thadh (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is SOP but one would not know that this is the term if one did not have it in the dictionary. In other languages, this notion is named in a different matter; in Italian, it is "lista puntata". This is very useful for translators. WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." If one deletes this and keeps bulleted list, that's better than nothing, though, since the reader can still find the Dutch translation in the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is also not a usual way to refer to "bulleted list", it's just "list with signs for listing things"; No Dutch speaker would see this combination of words and analyse them as an idiomatic or in any way non-literal noun phrase. I will even go as far as to say that "opsommingslijst" is a much better and probably more used translation of "bulleted list". Thadh (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is true, that is all the more reason to have the best Dutch translation in the mainspace, whichever that may be. Can you support the notion that "opsommingslijst" is more idiomatic? finds books about MS Word and CSS using that phrase. And I don't see "opsommingslijst" in Microsoft web site, unlike "lijst met opsommingstekens". So do we have any evidence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that Microsoft decided to rephrase this word instead of translating it isn't proof of anything. And a single compound word is always more idiomatic than a literal noun phrase. Thadh (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your best proof and evidence? I don't see that a single compound word is always more idiomatic, more usual and customary than the disputed phrase. For Czech, there are two phrases, similarly common: odrážkový seznam and seznam s odrážkami. Both are natural Czech used by translators and worth documenting as such. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "What is your best proof and evidence?" - I'm a native speaker and I can use google? Thadh (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All right. Not evidence or proof, but still having quite some force. Did Microsoft translators do a lousy job there? Does the phrase "lijst met opsommingstekens" sound unnatural or merely too transparent? And given you are native, would you create opsommingslijst entry? (Today I discovered the Czech phrase seznam s odrážkami, which I never heard before, but it sees quite of lot of use. One learns.) --Dan Polansky (talk)
 * Thank you for opsommingslijst, defined as "list (especially when bulleted or numbered)". It means it is not a synonym of lijst met opsommingstekens, right? If so, the RFD-nominated Dutch term is the only current candidate for translation of bulleted list, itself in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dan, you don't seem to grasp the concept of SOP, idiomaticity or translation hubs. Thadh (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? I started this by saying "this is SOP", and I don't dispute that. I said it was useful. WT:THUB regulates English entries, not this one, and I am one of the two authors of WT:THUB. My argument is utility, not SOP or non-SOP. If you say "It's SOP, useful or not", then that's it, but this is not what I say: I say, this seems to be the most natural translation and should be documented as such for translators.
 * You wrote: 'I will even go as far as to say that "opsommingslijst" is a much better and probably more used translation of "bulleted list".' Is it true or not? As per opsommingslijst, it does not seem to be true, but you know this best, I don't. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not useful as it's just an ad hoc re-formulation of the given English text, any translator can do this on his own. It's like claiming "ik hoop dat u zich thuis voelt" ("I hope you feel at home") deserves an entry because it could be used as a translation equivalent of the English "welcome".
 * The reason I brought up WT:THUB is that just because we have an English entry for an English SOP term that doesn't mean that we need to keep all the corresponding SOP terms in other languages. Thadh (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You posted opsommingslijst could be a better translation, so it does not seem obvious that any translator would figure out "lijst met opsommingstekens" is better; it seems you initially would not. Correct me if opsommingstekens in fact means bulleted list.
 * You voted delete on bulleted list as well. "lijst met opsommingstekens" could have been at least listed there, as separate parts. People are just recklessly deleting useful things. Through this discussion, we seem to have discovered "lijst met opsommingstekens" to be the best translation, and yet we are not allowed to enter this information into Wiktionary in any form, not even in bulleted list. Makes no sense to me. THUB was a great victory for supporting terms useful for translation purposes, but we need to go further. I remember how people attacked me for THUB; then it passed by near unanimity. Strange things happen. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We didn't discover any such thing. "opsommingsteken" means "sign for making a list of something", in this case this would be a bullet, but it might just as well be numbers of little pink hearts. Again, this is an ad hoc creation, not an established combination of words. Thadh (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) If you check bulleted list definition, you will find the symbol does not need to be the literal bullet. Bulleted list is just an antonym of numbered list, using any non-numbering symbol. Does "lijst met opsommingstekens" cover numbered lists? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And the question then is, what is the best Dutch translation of bulleted list? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase "opsommingslijst" seems surface ambiguous in so far as opsomming is an enumeration. A numbered list is also an enumeration, albeit numbered. Dutch can decide to use the phrase like this, though. At the same time, some may prefer the longer phrase as less ambiguous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the use of bullets to announce list items was virtually unknown before the eighties. Translating in quotations from 1941 and 1972 by “bulleted list” is an anachronism.  --Lambiam 15:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * it was probably dashes or numbers, but I wouldn't know how to translate it into English, there isn't really a translation equivalent that I know of. Thadh (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You could say "enumerated list". --Lambiam 17:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "People are just recklessly deleting useful things": maybe, or maybe you and others are just recklessly creating pointless entries.
 * I've created, and added lijst met opsommingstekens as a usex/collocation there so that there's no loss of information. Now, could we please delete this silly entry and work on creating more useful ones please? PUC – 21:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You showed up in the THUB vote as the only opposer of THUB who wanted to have as few THUBs as possible; the other two opposers wanted that more terms counted toward THUB. You don't seem to care about multilingual utility.
 * Of course, the collocation in opsommingsteken has poor discoverability; entry bulleted list is the best location to answer the question "How does one best translate that into Dutch". Can we please at least keep bulleted list? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "You don't seem to care about multilingual utility": not true (why would I even be contributing here if that were the case?); also my position on translation hubs has evolved somewhat.
 * I think bulleted list / bullet list are more useful entries for us to have than the Dutch one, which I don't see a use case for, but I won't take part in that RFD one way or another. PUC – 21:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So tell me, does "lijst met opsommingstekens" cover numbered lists? If it is pure SOP, this should be easy to answer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. ? PUC – 21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It does as long as the numbers don't indicate value but only the index.
 * It's not our job to tell translators how to best translate any give phrase from one language to the other. We can help them with translations of individual words, but they should be able to figure out how to build sentences with them. Thadh (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "don't indicate value but only the index", any example?
 * Sentences not, but short phrases representing what looks like a distinct concept, yes. We even have phrasebook with whole sentences such as I love you and I have a toothache, in Category:English phrasebook. I have a toothache is less useful than bulleted list and lijst met opsommingstekens. If lijst met opsommingstekens does not mean "bulleted list", which it does seem to mean in "Een lijst met opsommingstekens of een genummerde lijst maken", it needs to be corrected or expanded, not deleted. The best job would probably be done by a native speaker who would select some good supporting attesting quotations to place into the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this does not represent a distinct concept. At all.
 * By value vs index I mean,
 * "Things I need to bring with me on vacation: 1. Toothbrush 2. Pillow 3. Phone charger" > This is a "lijst met opsommingstekens"
 * "Top five things I love in the world: 1. Languages 2. My mum" > This isn't
 * Now, frankly, this whole discussion has been quite tiring since it has essentially been me - a speaker of Dutch - and PUC - a learner of Dutch - trying to explain to you - a person who probably doesn't know a thing about Dutch - that not every language is the same and that this word doesn't have any more value than its literal meaning. Thadh (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * : a translation table is the best location to answer the question "How does one best translate that into Dutch". That's why we have them. It's possible to have a translation in a translation table with only the component elements wikilinked, so no one accidentally creates an entry from a redlink.
 * Chinese doesn't have inflectional morphology within words, so how about we create an entry for every Czech phrase that uses inflected words instead of word order and particles.
 * As for what other people care about: you don't care what they care about, or about this entry, really. It's just a convenient excuse to harp on your favorite general theoretical points. Your strategy is pretty obvious: contest everything that isn't nailed down. Dig up all the corpses so you can give them what you consider a fair trial. Leave no detail of anything anyone says without nitpicking it at great length, unless they agree with you. The sheer number of things you've decided to focus on speaks against any interest in any individual item for its own sake.
 * You've posted literally hundreds of thousands of words to the Wiktionary namespace in the past couple of months, disrupted everything, but have you changed anyone's mind? No. What a waste! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz Thank you for saying this. I am sure that I'm not the only one who is sick of this endless bludgeoning. Theknightwho (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is grossly unfair. I do a lot of policy work, as per User:Dan Polansky/Votes created, including the inclusionist WT:THUB, which together with my passionate inclusionism leads me to Beer parlour and Requests for deletion to prevent deletion-harm to Wiktionary. Some like my policy work, some hate it. I invite critics on my talk page. I could respond more point-to-point, but I won't to keep it short.
 * Dutch attesting quotations cannot be placed to bulleted list. Nonetheless, I invite those who think bulleted list useful to its current RFD nomination; I am the only current keeper there. If the Dutch entry is wrong, it should be deleted; my web research including Google Books suggested it was used narrowly by multiple large technology companies for bulleted list in contrast to a numbered list. However, I have no desire to contradict multiple native speakers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn’t grossly unfair - it’s an accurate summary of what you’ve been doing, which is to attempt to overwhelm any and all opposition to your viewpoints with sheer verbiage. You rarely (if ever) demonstrate any genuine understanding of other points of view: as here, you always characterise objections as coming from a place of irrationality (“recklessly”), callousness (“you don’t seem to care about”) or even malice (“I remember how people attacked me”), and never seem to consider for even a second that your opinion might be coming from a place of conceptual misunderstanding; for someone who likes to mention WT:AGF a lot, it sure seems like you don’t follow it. All this despite admitting that you didn’t understand the explanation - something that should be an indication that you need to do some background reading (e.g. checking what a list index is), instead of demanding others educate you. It’s extremely discourteous to other contributors, if nothing else, and borders on being genuinely disruptive due to the mass of (often repetitive) text that anyone who disagrees with you will inevitably face. Unfortunately, I suspect you will simply dismiss this as a personal attack (or perhaps you’ll laser focus on some irrelevant specifics), instead of taking the time to reflect on why your approach is problematic. Theknightwho (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP and the definition is also too narrow. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, SOP. Even if the English is idiomatic, the translations are not, but sundry occasionalisms. There are bare false regularities in software manual translation. Fay Freak (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, as SoP as it gets. This isn’t even a term, this is a description. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 11:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)