Talk:Schengen Agreement

As I know, Schengen Agreement means that you are not checked and searched at the borders of member countries of this agreement, nor your ID card or passport is. The fact that's written 'one can pass borders in Schengen area without passport' is correct, however you can do that in any EU countries, not only inside Schengen. E.g. from Hungary (which is a member of both EU and Schengen Agreement) one can go to Schengen countries with a single ID card, without being checked on any borders and one can go to other EU countries with a single ID card, however they are always searched and checked at the borders. People from outside Schengen and EU can come inside only with a valid visa and a passport, but not even they are checked inside Schengen. If I'm right, the definition should be corrected, because it's now for EU rules, not Schengen. Ferike333 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Schengen Agreement

A particular agreement. Not a toponym, a given name, a demonym, a taxon, a brand, a company name. Not used figuratively in English AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The only interest would be that of translators: which of the synonyms of "agreement" to use in English and in other languages. This information is readily available through Wikipedia though, and I think Wiktionary can do without. We do not seem to have a lot of other agreements listed, Warsaw Pact being a notable exception. Another aspect: is the word "Schengen" alone used to refer to the agreement in English (as it is at least in Finnish)? If it is, we might want to mention that in the entry for Schengen. --Hekaheka 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep until principles or rules for inclusion and exlusion of specific entities are clarified. This case is currently unregulated; this RFD is an extra-CFI one. With the exception of geographic entities, there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities. Maybe DCDuring would like to propose a candidate regulation, and send it for a vote?

Compare Pythagorean theorem: not a toponym, a given name, a demonym, a taxon, a brand, a company name; so what? --Dan Polansky 11:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Those (plus surname) are the sole precedents AFAICT for inclusion of proper nouns. As we have no rules, precedents would seem to be our sole guide. I believe that each new class of items to be included (discussed on RfD for the first time) should at the very least be brought to BP if not subjected to a vote in accordance with our general effort to maintain some kind of consensus and a modest degree of consistency. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For a larger context of readers of this RFD, you are a noted deletionist who has for long supported the attributive-use rule (which blocked inclusion of many names of specific entities), and who would want to see all proper names excluded from Wiktionary. Now to the subject matter.

There is a considerable precedent of including various names of specific entities, including some names of stars. A discussion in Beer parlor would be okay, but in its absence my default is to keep. --Dan Polansky 09:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Well known international treaty. We have others like Geneva Convention and Warsaw Convention--Dmol 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Well-known international treaty" not a CFI consideration. Have the others cleared an RfD discussion? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep unless a Beer parlour discussion shows otherwise. This term seems particularly inclusion-worthy, more so than "Geneva Convention" and "Warsaw Convention". --Dan Polansky 09:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

kept all. -- Prince Kassad 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Geneva Convention

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in the abscence of an exclusion principle and CFI regulation. No exclusion principle, not even a tentative one, has been proposed by the nominator, other than a broad wish to exclude as many proper names as possible. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Warsaw Convention

Same as above. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in the abscence of an exclusion principle and CFI regulation. No exclusion principle, not even a tentative one, has been proposed by the nominator, other than a broad wish to exclude as many proper names as possible. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Long-term wide-spread use. Not guessable from its parts.--Dmol 09:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Very weak keep to all four, since CFI doesn't exclude them. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–August 2016

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Schengen Agreement

Encyclopedic. Or should we include Treaty of Versailles/Versailles Treaty, Peace of Westphalia, Westphalia ("treaty ending the Thirty Years' War 1648") [missing def.], Appomattox (the surrender that ended the American Civil War) [missing def.]? I could see us going either way. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A good time to break out the "slippery slope" argument, in either direction. It seems like we'd have to include an awful lot of entries like this. Many dictionaries do, of course, give simple definitions for common phrases like the names of important treaties or battles. Does it make any difference that the phrases "treaty of . . ." or "peace of . . ." and similar phrases are clues enabling the reader to look them up in an encyclopedia, while "Versailles" or "Appomattox" are used as shorthand, the meaning of which is not apparent without knowledge of the events that happened there? I don't see much harm in a definition that says something like, "Appomattox: a reference to the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's forces at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia in 1865, often considered the most significant event marking the conclusion of the United States Civil War. Wikipedia has an article on . . ." So I think I'm leaning in favour of keeping. Not a burden on Wiktionary to keep it, and would explain the meaning of the word in the majority of contexts. Short definitions like this would suit most of the above examples, without becoming encyclopedic. P Aculeius (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Schengen Agreement" (name for a certain agreement), "Treaty of Versailles" (name for a certain treaty) et al are fundamentally different from "Appomatox" (name of a place, used metonymically for events which happened there) et al, IMO. We might decide to include both or exclude both types of term, but each type would need to stand on its own merits.
In a section further up, you mention US Supreme Court case titles; those are a third type of term; I've wondered if we should include some, but I can't find usage of any that is both not italicized and not referring to the court case in a way that is obvious in context (such that a reader wouldn't turn to us to find out what was meant, because they'd already know from the context). For example, all the uses of "before Roe" that I find are either italicized (alerting readers that it's a work title), or "before Roe v. Wade" (where it's obvious to readers that it's specifically a court case title), or both. - -sche (discuss) 07:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

One relatively simple rule would be follow-the-lemmings: If any works on a list of references, say, in English, OneLook+OED+any print dictionary (possibly with exclusions), have an entry/article for a term of a given type, then include automatically, subject to attestation, else, fight it out at RfD. The converse rule of automatically excluding unless there are lemmings and fighting out the inclusions is another option. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a definition in Schengen. That ought to be enough. delete -- Liliana • 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (interestingly there is no definition for the "Treaty of Versailles" meaning in Versailles, that better be fixed!)

I agree delete and make sure Schengen covers this. 'Schengen' attributively covers this, Schengen area, Schengen zone and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)