Talk:好Q

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion debate[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


Two things with this entry. Firstly, I believe it is sum of parts as it's a very generic adverb / adjective combo (not an idiom at all); the adverb can be replaced with any intensifer and the phrase will still stand. I have raised the issue with 123abc on his talkpage. Secondly, I removed his rebuttal comment from the page itself; however, in his defence, he decided to revert my edit and put the comment back onto the entry page resulting in a potential edit war. JamesjiaoT C 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed SoP. The user has also added 好Q and *shudders* 很cute. Why s/he didn't just add a Mandarin entry for Q is beyond me. I'll go do that now. All three of these should be deleted. AFAIK the only two character word on Wiktionary we have that is prefixed by is 很少 which IMO should probably be deleted but I suppose might be useful for CSL students. Tooironic 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tooironic 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is: you are treating every phrase as if they are the same, when others are trying to make you see the individual differences. JamesjiaoT C 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think this is beyond any shadow of doubt. I have dicussed this in detail with 123abc on Talk:很Q. JamesjiaoT C 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I mean, nǐhǎo, you can add almost anything to Q and make more or less the same meaning - 非常Q, Q死了, Q不得了, 太Q了, etc. IMO 123abc is not fit to continue editing Wiktionary if s/he continues to create non-dictionary entries here requiring more work from other editors. I just checked out Q and the user has made a complete mess of the entire Mandarin entry which we are going to have to fix again. And is it too much to ask if the user could sign his/her entries! Tooironic 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]