Wiktionary:Requests for deletion: difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→pedophilia: comment |
|||
| Line 1,049: | Line 1,049: | ||
* '''Delete all four senses'''. Especially senses 4 and 5 are misguided, and I am tired of explaining why; sense 5 lacks differentia (lexicography 101); senses 6 and 7 seem overspecific. Please avoid very long posts to this RFD, or else it becomes as much of a mess as the RFV and related talk page discussion. Also please keep the typography simple, avoiding various font colors and background colors; please don't repeat the logorrhea and typographic mess that we can see at [[WT:RFV#pedophilia]]. Please limit extensive discussion; there is plenty of hard-to-follow discussion on [[WT:RFV#pedophilia]] already. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
* '''Delete all four senses'''. Especially senses 4 and 5 are misguided, and I am tired of explaining why; sense 5 lacks differentia (lexicography 101); senses 6 and 7 seem overspecific. Please avoid very long posts to this RFD, or else it becomes as much of a mess as the RFV and related talk page discussion. Also please keep the typography simple, avoiding various font colors and background colors; please don't repeat the logorrhea and typographic mess that we can see at [[WT:RFV#pedophilia]]. Please limit extensive discussion; there is plenty of hard-to-follow discussion on [[WT:RFV#pedophilia]] already. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: '''Delete'''. #4 is a cultural not a lexical difference, like how we don't have different senses for [[cannabis]] because it's legal in some countries and illegal in other. Because it's not part of the definition. #6 and #7 are not lexical. It is not the job of a dictionary to list standards held by medical bodies all over the world. That's cultural information and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. #5 is a bit more marginal. I wouldn't mind an RFV so much for that one because a sexual orientation isn't the same as sexual feelings. So definitely delete, #4, #6, #7, on the fence for #5. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
:: '''Delete'''. #4 is a cultural not a lexical difference, like how we don't have different senses for [[cannabis]] because it's legal in some countries and illegal in other. Because it's not part of the definition. #6 and #7 are not lexical. It is not the job of a dictionary to list standards held by medical bodies all over the world. That's cultural information and therefore belongs on Wikipedia. #5 is a bit more marginal. I wouldn't mind an RFV so much for that one because a sexual orientation isn't the same as sexual feelings. So definitely delete, #4, #6, #7, on the fence for #5. [[User:Renard Migrant|Renard Migrant]] ([[User talk:Renard Migrant|talk]]) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::{{reply to|Dan Polansky}} you are starting this RFD to split the discussion that is already started in an RFV – you don't want to have this discussion include usages potentially verified in that RFV (or having the many attested usages declared unverifiable there). Why don't you contribute something there? You may here that you <q style="color:teal">are tired of explaining why</q> – but you never did contribute there. No I am not going to change the way I write for you; criticizing that I visually separate what what I say from what I quote is silly. I will repeat what was included but ignored in [[WT:RFV#pedophilia]]. WT:RFV#pedophilia is about verifying what I attested to. That process is failing. No one is discussing either the nuance of the attested usage, or any of the attested usage. |
|||
:::This is about a vile and repulsive subject but each usage is well attested on [[Citations:pedophilia]], [[Citations:paedophilia]], or [[Citations:paidophilia]]. |
|||
:::I think this RFD process should begin after the RFV process is concluded. —[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply to|Renard Migrant}} about <small style="color:gray;">sense 4</small>, is [[hate crime]] a lexical [[WT:SOP]] difference or a cultural SOP difference? I was taught in elementary school that culture is a set of symbols like language. |
|||
:::<small style="color:gray;">sense 6</small> is lexical. It is the prescribed sense used for this term internationally. WHO was created by international agreement to do what it does. Part of what it does is publish a standard for epidemiological classification, the {{w|International Classification of Diseases}}. This is a controlled vocabulary which is translated into many languages. The vocabulary is by international agreement in practice and including the sense that is prescribed and used planet wide. Differentiating <small style="color:gray;">sense 6</small> and <small style="color:gray;">sense 7</small> is not over specific but the granularity in use on a planetary scale. It is part of a planetary prescribed vocabulary in multiple languages that should be described in wiktionary. I think it is safe to say most English speaking countries are signatories of these treaties and have obligations involving this vocabulary. —[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Corsu#rfd-notice--|Corsu]] == |
== [[Corsu#rfd-notice--|Corsu]] == |
||