Talk:---

RFD discussion: August–September 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

---

What --- is meant to represent.

-··

What -·· is meant to represent (top line).

These are not words in any language. --WikiTiki89 13:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, Morse code? It depends on the length of the dash though - O and D respectively. DonnanZ (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  Did you look at the entries? It's not Morse code, these are line patterns. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but Morse has an alphabet, so it must be a language of sorts which can be used for a lot of languages (I have an amateur radio licence). But whether these are the right format for Morse characters is another question. DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, it was not Morse code entries that I nominated here. Morse code entries have not been added yet. The current entries represent the line patterns in the images I just added at right. It is the line patterns that are up for deletion here. Line patterns are not words. --WikiTiki89 14:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, but the similarity is striking. DonnanZ (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Although the entry names --- and -·· are a little weird in my opinion and I'd probably want to rename them if we think of better names.

I created --- and -·· to explain different uses of line patterns in origami books (valley fold, mountain fold), among other senses (------- = detach a coupon). They are really not words in any language. I created these entries because I felt there is an actual, verifiable symbolic value for all senses. I added at least 1 quotation for each sense, and it would be trivial to find 3 quotations.

I've been creating a number of entries for symbols and pictographs with actual meanings, like ✓, ✗, ☐ (empty ballot), 💬, 💭, 🗮, 🗖, 🗕, 🗗, 🗙... IMHO, ------------------- and -··-··-··-··-··-··-··-·· have a symbolic value like those. If other cultures use a different line pattern to do the same things, that's something I'd like to know, too.

Incidentally, I created a few similar meanings for long lines in other entries:

. has:

1. Used repeatedly (as in: ........) in the index of a book, separates the chapter name from the page number.

   Introduction..................................13

   Chapter 1.....................................14

   Chapter 2.....................................19

_ has:

1. Indicates a space to be filled. Often, the character _ is used repeatedly to form a longer line.

   Age: __ Gender: _

   Sign here: _________________________________ Date: __________

⸻ has:

1. Separates titles, subtitles, chapter numbers, comments, and the body text.
   • 1843, Harvard University, The Symbol and Odd Fellows' Magazine, Volumes 1-2, Harvard University, page 223:

     Original.

     ⸻

     THE HISTORY OF A FIVE FRANC PIECE.

     BY P. G. L. WYMAN, JR.

     ⸻

     IN TWELVE CHAPTERS⸻CHAPTER II.

     ⸻

     […]

     Soon a man of respectable appearance, whom I took for a laborer, came in and […]

If people want to delete ------------------- and -··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··, I assume they would want to delete those other lines too? (......................, _____________________, ⸻) If they do, maybe we can put all the 5 lines in an appendix. Anyway, my vote is keep.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. First of all, these have no meaning as individual units: it's only the line that contains them that has any significance.

More importantly, these may convey meaning, but they aren't language. As any artist will tell you, there's symbolism and nuance in all kinds of graphical elements, including color, texture, shape and composition (I'm probably just scratching the surface). You can also convey meaning by using italics, underlining, bolding, ALL CAPS, and other text styles- but that doesn't mean we should have entries for them.

It's not that they're unimportant- street gangs regularly fight and kill each other over things like the drawing of a line through a piece of grafitti- but they're not dictionary material. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per Chuck and nom. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a clue but in general we only want symbols used in human language(s) to have entries, not anything used in non-verbal communication. If I said a friend a picture of a kitten it communicates something, but we don't want all kitten pictures to have an entry here. Well, no-one but me. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Move to an Appendix. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I support moving them to an appendix. Possible name: Appendix:Line patterns. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I oppose moving these to an appendix. If anything, there could be a Wikipedia article on them. They are not dictionary material. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia has sent us so many misbegotten errors in judgement to infest our Appendix namespace over the years, so we should return the favor rather than doing it to ourselves. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I deleted the two entries early because they are going to fail RFD anyway. They are both in User:Daniel Carrero/Line patterns. I deleted them because I wanted to make way for Morse code entries, which are being discussed in the BP. No sense making an effort to keep both an unwanted line pattern and a Morse code letter in the same entry. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you only deleted --- but not -··. Did you mean to delete -··? FWIW I agree with the sentiment above that these ("line patterns") are not lexical; I would not expect someone to interpret them as language. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I deleted the other entry now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)