Talk:deel uitmaken van
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Imetsia in topic RFD discussion: December 2020–July 2021
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
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.
"See uitmaken" isn't a definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed this now. —CodeCat 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Dutch, SOP: "to constitute" + "part" + "of". Deel can be substituted for various alternatives (gedeelte, onderdeel). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Some other possible substitutions: de helft, het merendeel, de hoofdschotel, ruim 75 procent. And one can also say: deel vormen van. --Lambiam 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep (or at the very least, "deel uitmaken" without "van")— Dentonius 11:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- Should we then also create entries for deel zijn, deel vormen en deel worden? --Lambiam 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lambiam, I know it was a rhetorical question but your examples aren't linguistically challenging. I want to keep deel uitmaken van because as someone who's still working on his Dutch, it's not an expression which is obvious to me. I haven't quite internalised this one yet. I understand it when I hear it but it doesn't come naturally to me when I speak to Dutch people... not yet, anyway. — Dentonius 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Take a sentence like, “Dit zal deel gaan uitmaken van het onderzoek naar het hacken van de systemen.”[1] To analyze this, it helps to put this into a different word order: “Dit zal deel van het onderzoek naar het hacken van de systemen gaan uitmaken.” Parts that belong together, but became spatially separated by a standard transformation, have been reunited in the word order: “deel van ...”. For someone who is learning English, it may be hard to understand the meaning of the sentence, “This will be part of our investigation”. Such learners’ problems are not a valid reason to handle be part as a lemma. --Lambiam 20:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lambiam, you have wonderful arguments to show why things are useful (especially for learners). You have an opportunity in this forum to include it. So why not? The standards which exist on en.wikt today will not be the standards here a decade from now. Why limit our dictionary? Imagine this: smartphone in hand; you say "define deel uitmaken van" and it pulls up the free dictionary, Wiktionary, and starts giving you all sorts of cool information from that page. Wiktionary is the kind of free resource which will be used by all sorts of better technology in the future. It can be a huge repository of anything we want to feed our devices. Nobody here will buy that, right? — Dentonius 21:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Take a sentence like, “Dit zal deel gaan uitmaken van het onderzoek naar het hacken van de systemen.”[1] To analyze this, it helps to put this into a different word order: “Dit zal deel van het onderzoek naar het hacken van de systemen gaan uitmaken.” Parts that belong together, but became spatially separated by a standard transformation, have been reunited in the word order: “deel van ...”. For someone who is learning English, it may be hard to understand the meaning of the sentence, “This will be part of our investigation”. Such learners’ problems are not a valid reason to handle be part as a lemma. --Lambiam 20:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lambiam, I know it was a rhetorical question but your examples aren't linguistically challenging. I want to keep deel uitmaken van because as someone who's still working on his Dutch, it's not an expression which is obvious to me. I haven't quite internalised this one yet. I understand it when I hear it but it doesn't come naturally to me when I speak to Dutch people... not yet, anyway. — Dentonius 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Struck per our previous discussion. Imetsia (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Should we then also create entries for deel zijn, deel vormen en deel worden? --Lambiam 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, and Dentonius, if you have a problem with the WT:SOP policy, create a vote to change it instead of pretending it does not exist. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mnemo, I believe our CFI could be tweaked but I don't have a problem with it. Like any document, it's open to interpretation. It explicitly makes provisions for people who think like me. (Read the very same WT:SOP you directed my attention to). What I've seen here is that many people have a problem with people who vote "keep" or "abstain" exclusively. I don't see why? If everything were so clear cut, why have an RFD? We could let the admins erase whatever they felt like if they believed it violated the CFI. Then again, I'm active on Wiktionaries in other languages where they do that... and let's just say that kind of thing has a huge impact on the number of active editors. All in all, SOP is a matter of interpretation. Some see added value. Others don't. That's why we vote. — Dentonius 14:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The "rare cases" clause hardly justifies blanket-keeping any entry nominated for deletion as SOP. That's a very strange reading of the policy. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mnemo, I believe our CFI could be tweaked but I don't have a problem with it. Like any document, it's open to interpretation. It explicitly makes provisions for people who think like me. (Read the very same WT:SOP you directed my attention to). What I've seen here is that many people have a problem with people who vote "keep" or "abstain" exclusively. I don't see why? If everything were so clear cut, why have an RFD? We could let the admins erase whatever they felt like if they believed it violated the CFI. Then again, I'm active on Wiktionaries in other languages where they do that... and let's just say that kind of thing has a huge impact on the number of active editors. All in all, SOP is a matter of interpretation. Some see added value. Others don't. That's why we vote. — Dentonius 14:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- If not keep, we might want to add this as a usage example to it component parts Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep by in between test, but move to deel uitmaken. The other examples mentioned (de helft uitmaken, deel vormen…) are less tightly bound so should not be included. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)