Hi. I wanted to let you guys know that I am compiling several lists of Danish terms that we do and don't have taken from several text sources, especially from the English Wiktionary. As the Danish Wiktionary, we should obviously and hypothetically include not just all lemma forms, but all non-lemma forms as well. See [[Bruger:Philmonte101|my user page]] for a list of these. This is what I'm currently basing many of my entries on. Right now, the Danish Wiktionary is doing well, but is seriously lacking in many areas. That's what I'm here to help the project with! [[Bruger:Philmonte101|Philmonte101]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Philmonte101|diskussion]]) 5. aug 2016, 19:38 (UTC)
== 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 unfortunately defending. I am American and I am a native English speaker; they should be listening to me rather than treating my opinion on the matter as "vandalism".
Anywho, in this example, the more common capitalization for the term is [[American Dream]], and adding "[[the]]" beforehand just makes it a sum-of-parts term, as you can find the definition for [[the]] separately from [[American Dream]].
Please refer to the English Wiktionary's policy on SOPs, as follows:
"An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. Non-idiomatic expressions are called sum-of-parts (SOP).
For example, '''this is a door''' is not idiomatic, but shut up and red herring are."
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" at the beginning of a term is not generally a component of a proper noun ''or'' a common 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)
<span class="wp_boppel" style="color:red">[[Fil:Red x.svg|16px|✘|link=]] </span>'''neij''', ikke nødvendig. [[Bruger:Bedsten|Bedsten]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Bedsten|diskussion]]) 1. sep 2016, 06:40 (UTC)
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)