Wiktionary:Landsbybrønden/Initiating SOP rules

Fra Wiktionary
Spring til navigation Spring til søgning

Initiating SOP rules[redigér]

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

Feel free to speak either Danish or English with me here, since I can read both very well, but I am going to stick with writing in English on my side since my Danish grammar is too poor and I'd be embarrassing myself most of the time. 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.
- Sarrus (db) 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. Philmonte101 (diskussion) 31. aug 2016, 20:24 (UTC)[]

✘ nej, ikke nødvendig. 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. Kinamand (diskussion) 1. sep 2016, 12:23 (UTC)[]

Bruger:Kinamand, okay, I've moved it. 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. Philmonte101 (diskussion) 2. sep 2016, 00:24 (UTC)[]
Jeg ser ingen problemer i at have opslag om filmproduktion og mellemkrigsår, som du nævner. Har der været et reelt problem med dette på enwiktionary, eller er det et potentielt problem, som man tager højde for på forhånd? Hvis der oprettes opslag som f.eks. sur mand, bør den nok (hvis den ønskes slettet) en tur rundt om Wiktionary:Sider der bør slettes, før den evt. slettes og ikke slettes on sight.
- Sarrus (db) d. 2. sep 2016, 13:52 (UTC)[]
The purpose of policy is to preserve peace. Here there is no discord because of "SOP"s. ✘ No, we don't need official policy. First jumper (diskussion) 5. sep 2016, 04:06 (UTC)[]
✘ Nej, jeg ser heller ikke nogen grund til at indføre den foreslåede regel. Kinamand (diskussion) 5. sep 2016, 11:03 (UTC)[]
@ User:First jumper So are you saying that if someone creates film school, wiki vandalism, green tree, brown leaf, health code violation, and many more similar entries, that there would still be "no discord"? And what if the same user continued making these entries for months? PseudoSkull (diskussion) 5. sep 2016, 13:59 (UTC)[]
Jeg føler ikke noget behov for sådan en side. --Olelog (diskussion) 6. sep 2016, 06:23 (UTC)[]