Diskussion:Forside: Forskelle mellem versioner
Content deleted Content added
Sarrus (diskussion | bidrag) |
|||
Linje 162:
We ''need'' official policy on this here. Let's have a vote. @[[User:Bedsten]], @[[User:First jumper]] [[Bruger:Philmonte101|Philmonte101]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Philmonte101|diskussion]]) 31. aug 2016, 11:31 (UTC)
:The entry has a reference to http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/american where "the American dream" is mentioned as a phrase. Existing words and phrases should be allowed. At least if they are confirmed by a reliable source. And please remember, that this is not enwiktionary. <br /> - [[bruger:Sarrus|Sarrus]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Sarrus|d]] • [[Speciel:Bidrag/Sarrus|b]]) d. 31. aug 2016, 14:07 (UTC)
:: The fact that it is mentioned in Oxford doesn't make it any less SOP. Do you think we should have entries like [[green tree]] that literally just mean [[green]] + [[tree]]? It is the same thing here. "the" is just a modifier in this case. In English, we don't include "the" within a proper noun or a noun. For instance, instead of saying "I'm going to The United States", we'd say "I'm going to the United States." "the" is not generally a component of a proper noun. Therefore, it's SOP. I wouldn't mind a redirect from [[the American Dream]] to [[American Dream]], but I'd like to keep [[American Dream]] as the lemma form.
:: Anyway, enough about that entry. My point in this discussion is that we at dawiktionary need an official policy guideline about multiple-worded entries being sums of parts. We simply can't include things like [[green tree]], [[Danish king]], [[American worker]], etc., unless they have some idiomatic meaning besides [[green]] + [[tree]], [[Danish]] + [[king]], etc. [[Bruger:Philmonte101|Philmonte101]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Philmonte101|diskussion]]) 31. aug 2016, 20:24 (UTC)
| |||