Wiktionary:Landsbybrønden/Initiating SOP rules: Forskelle mellem versioner
Content deleted Content added
Ny side: == Proposal for an extension to the Danish Wiktionary's policy on what is and isn't allowed here. == My motive is from the false entry the American dream which everyone here is unfo... |
Response to Bedsten |
||
Linje 22:
Denne her side hedder Diskussion:Forside og det er fordi den skal bruges til at diskutere hvad der skal stå på forsiden. Forslag til regler for hvad der skal være artikler om skal diskuteres på Landsbybrønden. [[Bruger:Kinamand|Kinamand]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Kinamand|diskussion]]) 1. sep 2016, 12:23 (UTC)
: [[Bruger:Kinamand]], okay, I've moved it. [[Bruger:Philmonte101|Philmonte101]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Philmonte101|diskussion]]) 2. sep 2016, 00:24 (UTC)
: [[User:Bedsten]], why do you think this is "not necessary" to include? The fact is that, if the entire Wiktionary project (yes, in all the languages) is still running and popular for at least another 40 years, which I see as pretty likely, then the Danish Wiktionary will one day, but very slowly, be in the millions as far as our entry count goes, especially since there may be more Danish users interested in participating as time goes by. So let's just say, for the sake of argument, that 10 years from now, instead of about 8 come-and-go users here, there will be 20 or more active and daily users in the Danish Wiktionary.
:: Now, as you all know, Danish is a Germanic language, which means virtually any combination of two common nouns is always a compound, unlike English, which usually represents two nouns put together with two words, deeming that term SOP. For example, [[filmproduktion]] is synonymous in English to [[film production]] (though also to [[filmmaking]]). [[mellemkrigsår]] literally means [[interwar year]] in English. [[brugerdiskussionside]] literally means [[user talk page]]. [[filmskole]] just means [[film school]]. [[substantivform]] just means [[noun form]]. [[bøjningsform]] just means [[inflected form]]. I could name countless more. But, my point is, most ''one-word'' entries, regardless of whether it's a compound or an inflected form or whatnot, should always be included as long as it is attestable with 3 durably archived citations. This means that, as painstaking as it can be, all these Danish compounds should, theoretically, eventually be here on dawiktionary. However, when we have more of these noun compounds, there will be some Danish user in an estimated ten years, let's just say for the sake of argument, with less knowledge about English or linguistics or whatever than they should, who starts adding countless SOP terms, such as [[noun form]] ([[noun]] + [[form]]), [[inflected form]] ([[inflected]] + [[form]]), [[user talk page]] ([[user]] + [[talk page]] [yes, [[talk page]] is not SOP]), [[interwar year]] ([[interwar]] + [[year]]), [[film school]] ([[film]] + [[school]]), [[film production]] ([[film]] + [[production]]), [[health code violation]] ([[health]] + [[code]] + [[violation]]), [[wiki vandalism]] ([[wiki]] + [[vandalism]]). I could ''literally'' spend the rest of my life's time naming countless more two-worded or three-worded terms like these, that, under the current lack of policy, could potentially be created. So, do you really think ''this'' is a ''good thing''? Heck, I'd probably ''leave'' the (Danish) project if I couldn't get all those deleted after their creation by some user who does this. So, why not just instate a policy here about idiomacity while we still can, before some massive attack like ''that'' happens. [[Bruger:Philmonte101|Philmonte101]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Philmonte101|diskussion]]) 2. sep 2016, 00:24 (UTC)
| |||