Talk:she's unconscious

he's unconscious
This and zij is bewusteloos. Not phrasebook-worthy, IMO. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and he's unconscious Furius (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, straightforward, no need for me to comment further. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is useful in emergency situations, isn't it? 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? If you know unconscious and have at least one finger (there are nine in reserve so don't worry), you don't need this entry. -- Liliana • 01:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were calling for help over the phone? Move to an appendix. - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely you just need to know the word [[unconscious]]. A telephone operator on an emergency call won't care about the gender of the person who's unconscious. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. In Czech, you say "je v bezvědomí" as if "he is in unconsciousness" rather than *"je bezvědomý". Other non-trivial translation is Russian "on bez soznánija" as if "he is without consciousness". Straightforward translations without much added lexicographical value include, admittedly, German "er ist bewusstlos". Thus, this entry is at least useful for translations. Generally speaking, the entry contains valuable lexicographical material, and the supporters of deletion have provided no justificaiton for the claim that their votes are making this multilingual dictionary better rather than worse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't your explanation really a call for appropriate Czech, Russian, etc entries in the Engish Wiktionary, and a reciprocal English entry in the Czech, Russian etc Wiktionaries? Choor monster (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You say lots of sentences differently in different languages. However, that's a matter of grammar and idiom. Equinox ◑ 13:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and of idiom. Anyway, the key question ought to be, IMHO, does it add value while being lexicographical and feasible? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are probably more English utterances which are 'useful for translations' than aren't. I do not consider this a valid reason. I'd consider that getting off topic, that is to say, no longer acting as a dictionary. Wiktionary is not a collection of miscellaneous information. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "There are probably more English utterances which are 'useful for translations' than aren't.": I don't think so. Even if it were so, the task should be to select the most relevant subset of sentences useful for translation rather than excluding them all. Your last sentence seems irrelevant, as an entry supporting multilingualism in a dictionary is not "miscellanenous" in any pejorative sense. Finally, Wiktionary has around 431,120 gloss definitions, while it has 338 entries in Category:English phrasebook and 73 entries in Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets, so the thesis that Wiktionary is somehow overflooded with tangential information supporting multilingualism and common phrases is empirically beyond ridiculous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 16:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)