Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Trinidadian English terms (second nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Trinidadian English terms[edit]
A previous AfD closed with deletion of this article. After a dispute on the propriety of that closure, a DRV consensus overturned it. The matter is relisted at AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an important part of understanding the development of English in all its complexities and dialects. And this is not just relevant to Trinidad. Trindadian English is also spoken by Trinidadians around the world, including the people upstairs from me in Toronto. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move relevant entries to Wiktionary. This article is, quite simply, a flagrant policy violation as a list of dictionary definitions. WP:NOT is unambiguous on this. We don't take dicdefs and we don't take lists of dicdefs. Lists like Canadian English words (which itself should go through an AfD since it has been source-tagged for months) are at least in part lists of blue links, and as such acceptable as quick references. This one contains all of two blue-linked terms (one unreferenced), and as such falls squarely under WP:NOT a dictionary. ~ trialsanderrors 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, an even earlier AfD from early 2006 here. -- H·G (words/works) 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The WP:NOT entry says that lists of dictionary definitions should not be kept, but glossaries of specialized terms should. This creates a great deal of disagreement about what the policy really means. Is this page a forbidden 'list of definitions' or an allowed 'glossary of specialized terms'? This repeated bickering over that ambiguity on each article is ridiculous... as is the claim above that "WP:NOT is unambiguous on this"... it really really isn't. People should leave off the deletion wars and discuss the policy itself to clearly define what we do and do not incorporate. If 'glossaries' are no longer going to be allowed (though that has been in the policy for a long time) or redefined to exclude pages like this then we should move to Wiktionary... but the proper course of action is to work on a consensus for that policy. Not declare jihad and battle over every involved page. --CBD 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a glossary. Whatever overlap there might be between glossaries and dictionaries, a list of dialect words is not affected by any change that does not expressly allow lists of dictionary definitions. And we're acting on current policy which is unambiguous for this case, and not on potential future changes that might or might not ever be adopted. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the page you link to... "This is a list of glossaries (pages containing terms and their definitions or explanations).". In what way is the article under consideration not a 'page containing terms and their definitions'? You keep saying that current policy is unambiguous on this case. I'm sorry, but that really just is not true. Current policy says that lists of definitions are not allowed, but glossaries are... which is inherently ambiguous, no matter how many times people say it isn't, because glossaries ARE lists of definitions. That's what a glossary is... and indeed exactly how the word is defined on the page linked from the WP:NOT entry. The policy is self-contradictory, and that is the issue we should be addressing... because until that is resolved these deletion debates are meaningless. --CBD 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read the page I linked to. Glossaries, as you can see from the list, are compendiums of specialized terms used in particular fields of competence (mathematics, law, medicine). The term for a general compendium of words in a particular language or dialect is dictionary. If there is any ambiguity between the two terms, it is restricted to, say, compendiums of legal terms in Creole, not to standard dicdefs or colloquialisms in Creole. I can only guess why the disctinction was made to allow glossaries, but my best guess is that 1. they tend to be lists of blue links, and 2. they are useful as quick references to understand articles on topics in the particular field. We have articles on medicine and law, but we don't have articles in Creole or Trinidadian English, so the need for quick reference isn't given and the entries can be treated like any dicdefs, by listing them in and linking to Wiktionary. And that doesn't even broach the verifiability or copyvio problems of this or similar articles. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the page you link to... "This is a list of glossaries (pages containing terms and their definitions or explanations).". In what way is the article under consideration not a 'page containing terms and their definitions'? You keep saying that current policy is unambiguous on this case. I'm sorry, but that really just is not true. Current policy says that lists of definitions are not allowed, but glossaries are... which is inherently ambiguous, no matter how many times people say it isn't, because glossaries ARE lists of definitions. That's what a glossary is... and indeed exactly how the word is defined on the page linked from the WP:NOT entry. The policy is self-contradictory, and that is the issue we should be addressing... because until that is resolved these deletion debates are meaningless. --CBD 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a glossary. Whatever overlap there might be between glossaries and dictionaries, a list of dialect words is not affected by any change that does not expressly allow lists of dictionary definitions. And we're acting on current policy which is unambiguous for this case, and not on potential future changes that might or might not ever be adopted. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CBD. Guettarda 01:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my view, qualifies as a glossary and thus adheres to policy. Also treats an obviously important topic as part of our Creole english coverage. A merge to Trinidadian Creole English is a further possibility. --JJay 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, these are useful articles, and kept by both policy and precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.