Talk:lobe de l'oreille

RFD discussion: January–February 2018
SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2020
Original discussion: Talk:lobe de l'oreille


 * Undelete >SOP &mdash; Dentonius 07:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted and please stop flooding RFD with pointless undeletion requests. I was planning on starting one this month, but I'll postpone that because there has been an excess of them already this month. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LBD, these undeletion requests aren't pointless to me. They matter to me because I want these terms here in this dictionary. They are useful and informative. Now, it seems you've only opened your mouth to challenge me to stop requesting undeletions. There are people here who have made a career of requesting deletions daily. Verily, they became admins by virtue of their commitment to shrinking our dictionary. Why don't you go challenge them? &mdash; Dentonius 08:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I challenge them every single time I vote "keep", that is hardly an unseen occasion. But an undeletion request is a request to undo a previous decision and in many cases to undo a previous consensus. So they should be used judiciously. I don't think it is logical to use the procedure for terms that aren't found in any general dictionary in the respective language, abridged or unabridged. Can you find lobe de l'oreille in any French general dictionary? ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in terms of your wiki style, you do strike me as kind of close to the centre. That's true. Regarding finding those terms in dictionaries: (1) I'll leave that as an exercise for those interested to determine. I, myself, search for lemmings before I make my requests. (2) As I was told by longstanding members of the community, our standards shouldn't be based on what others are doing. We define our own editorial practices. &mdash; Dentonius 10:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are reasonable as evidenced here: Votes/pl-2018-12/Lemming_principle_into_CFI. &mdash; Dentonius 10:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We know you are on a mission to rescue all useful terms and therefore want the SOP criterion to be reconsidered and relaxed. The difference in opinion is really in what we should consider “useful”. If I’m reading a text in Dutch and do not understand the sentence Het is wel een heavy dingetje geworden, niet?, then at that moment it would be useful to me to have some resource explaining this in plain English. But I hope you will agree it would not be reasonable to include an entry ; rather, we should include and  with definitions for the appropriate senses – and I think the inclusion of  is marginally defensible, but is better handled by a well-chosen usage example. Your criterion appears to be, based on your voting behaviour, that all collocations are useful if they express a specific concept (like, here,, whose spelling with the components written together signals it is a concept on its own). I could live with a redefined criterion of the referent of a multiword term being a specific concept if we can formulate a workable definition of “specific concept”. Is “dried leaf” one? Or “storm damage”? Lacking a workable definition, the outcome of RfD discussions would be determined by the tastes of the few editors who happen to join in, rather than by standards agreed upon by the community. Rather than voting for keeping each common collocation in languages you happen to understand, your effort might be better spent in finding a workable definition that could replace WT:SOP. Another (IMO more useful) thing you could do is include such collocations as usage examples, for example a sentence such as “Son père lui avait fait percer les lobes d’oreilles alors qu’elle était encore enfant” – note the plural form oreilles as a usage example for the French noun lobe. Adding such a usage example requires first adding the missing entry .  --Lambiam
 * Yes, Lambiam. I think you understand me fairly well, by now. I believe compounds are useful. They refer to specific entities and concepts. You've rightly stated that set phrases, common collocations, and lexical chunks fall under my definition of useful. I won't restate what I've argued several times in BP but there's more than one way to address the problem of how to include useful multi-word terms. When the audience improves, I will revisit those recommendations. &mdash; Dentonius 11:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say I'm quite inclusionist. Not that my exact position matters much, but it seems your sense of what's the centre in editing philosophy is quite off, leading you to perceive the community as staunchly deletionist. As for the editing standards, I don't know what the longstanding editors told you and I agree that we have our own policies, but the purpose of the project is still to produce an unabridged, multilingual, general dictionary, not a vocabulary trainer and not a specialist dictionary. The project is still called Wiktionary, not Wikabulary. So the result should still be recognisable as an unabridged, multilingual, general dictionary. Sum-of-parts multiword expressions such as "that is possible", "to dress well", "wintry shower" and "that country's president is a right tosser" and their translations may be useful to several people, but they are bizarre lemma content for a dictionary. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LBD, I think you're quite reasonable in how you cast your votes. I don't always agree. But you've always demonstrated you're not one of those who blindly casts a vote for delete. As for where on the spectrum you are, let's put it this way: (talking about wiki styles, left=inclusionist; right=deletionist) I'm far left. There are some here who are far right (I won't call names), but you'll see it if you pay attention. You're sort of closer to a centrist. That's just my opinion, though. Purpose aims to describe our purpose here. I like the document. It doesn't try to step on anybody's toes. &mdash; Dentonius 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "There are people here who have made a career of requesting deletions daily. Verily, they became admins by virtue of their commitment to shrinking our dictionary." Could you mention some people who became admins this way? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This finding, Mnemo ... ... would only be divisive. We need only peruse this bloated RFD page to see if what I'm saying is true or not. &mdash; Dentonius 16:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a petty and unwarranted accusation to level at people who spend a lot of their free time trying to improve this project out of a genuine love for it (and have done so for many years), and being coy and suggestive about it does not make it more believable. I couldn't name a single admin who has nominated for deletion even a fifth of the amount of entries they have added to the dictionary (and that would be a very deletionist outlier!), and that this applies to basically every admin can be easily proven, which is why I ask you to name names. I doubt you can come up with one. Hell, many admins have created far more entries in mainspace than they have mere edits in Wiktionary namespace (of which only a fraction will be 'delete'-nominations in RFD). This kind of insinuatory nonsense makes you look really dishonest. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that Dentonius was talking about people like me. I've deleted some 250+ pages, and a few people mentioned deleting "Angelucci's SOP entries on sight" as a reason to support my adminship. But I'm quite happy to have "shrunk the dictionary" by removing garbage entries that gained consensus-support for deletion. Imetsia (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have created almost ten times as many entries as that, so clearly you cannot be this mysterious admin working hard to shrink the dictionary. Whoever could it actually be, one wonders? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not focus on any particular admin's record. As we say where I come from: mi throw mi corn, mi neva call nuh fowl. I've personally deleted 0 pages as have many other members of this community. When we say "delete", we do not mean clicking the "delete" button when you become an admin. We mean your voting record in RFD on top of that. How many pages have you killed by voting "delete"? Naturally, there are entries and pages which deserve to be removed. There are so many people who vote delete exclusively that I don't need to vote "delete" ever. I either keep what I like or abstain. So many of you have removed useful and informative pages from this website and we see it in the way you vote. You destroyers are always looking for somebody else's work to delete, never your own. &mdash; Dentonius 19:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to wade too heavily into an editing war, but I think it would be useful to have a sub-entry tag for useful or common SOPs. So, ‎lobe de l'oreille could be listed as a sub-entry of either oreille or lobe. This would keep the entries limited, but make these useful SOP findable for a user. Currently, I've seem people list SOP using the example template, but if we create a sub-entry template, we can have the search jump to them. Other dictionaries, such as the Robert-Collins, do this. Languageseeker (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't want to focus on any particular's admin's record because you cannot in fact name even a a single admin who indeed deletes more than they create (as I mentioned, basically every admin has created far more than they have deleted or voted to delete as can be verified pretty easily using xtools on wmfslabs) or who takes some nefarious delight in deleting entries - a bizarre and incredibly bad-faith interpretation of the fact that other people have different visions of what the dictionary should look like than you do, namely not including SOP terms which is an actual point of policy on Wiktionary. And you dance around my question by moving the goalposts, now claiming that "destroyers" find pleasure in specifically deleting others '  entries (an inventive but equally baseless twist from the earlier "shrinking the dictionary"), and by trying to claim you do not want to be 'divisive' (a laughable claim after what you've posted here and elsewhere about the ill-defined "old guard" you seem to credit with so much malicious intent) by actually substantiating your toxic accusations. But you cannot have your cake and eat it with accusations like this. Either you don't insult people at all or you own it, but these irrefutably vague accusations (because you refuse to substantiate them, because you cannot) are pathetic. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just ignore me, Mnemo. It's too easy. &mdash; Dentonius 12:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It'd be easier to if you wouldn't insult good editors all over the place (even if you are afraid to own it)? Consider that people might have motivations for disagreeing with you beyond the cartoonishly evil caricature of "destroyers" you've constructed for them in your head - and that people who disagree with you on some things do not automatically fit into some clique or camp. That way of thinking is high school shit. It's also toxic as hell and bad for this community. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, SOP. PUC ~ 212.224.232.77 10:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. On another note, this recent influx of undelete requests is just ridiculous, disruptive and a dilution of this institution, if I can be so bold as to consider it something worth respecting and upholding. Just look at the title of this forum – that's the real function of this forum, not undeletion requests that a) should be kept to a (reasonable) minimum and b) have greater potential of being resurrected than a snowball's chance in hell. Abusing this option, not only questions the foundations of this community, it makes us turn on each other. Respect the voting process which leads to the deletion of lemmas, and more importantly the people who participate in these votes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, though the lemma should be created. — فين أخاي ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 18:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added noun form of with lobe de l'oreille as ux.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Snowball close. Overwhelming consensus for this to remain deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)