Talk:китайская цифра
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Russian SoP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- How is this more SOP than Chinese numeral? Binarystep (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t know, but maybe the Anglophone world is more likely to deal with the topic than Russophones. I had actually nominated English Chinese numeral for deletion, but there was no consensus for its deletion. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was consensus to keep it. I don't see why this should be treated any differently. Nominating an entry based on a hunch about usage where you self-admittedly "don't know" is extremely dubious. Theknightwho (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think a Russian speaker can better judge whether it be SoP or no than either of us. Anyway, it's worth noting that there’s no Chinese entry for Chinese numeral. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- But you're the one that nominated it after the English discussion ended in keep... Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone is free to nominate a term for deletion, this is a democratic forum. (By the way, I was the who had the English entry RFD-kept.) The Russian nomination could of course be viewed independent of the English entry. Also, the English entry is probably useful due its contents, while the Russian entry is a useless SoP & encyclopedic entry. And most importantly: the English entry is also useful as a translation hub, because it contains a valid Vietnamese translation, mã. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would китайская цифра (kitajskaja cifra) be used (even colloquially) to refer to 弐, 壱, the Japanese form of 零, or the chữ Nôm numerals? If so, I think there's a pretty strong argument for the term not being SOP. Binarystep (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I created the entry in 2013 but I think it is an SOP and should be deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Would китайская цифра (kitajskaja cifra) be used (even colloquially) to refer to 弐, 壱, the Japanese form of 零, or the chữ Nôm numerals? If so, I think there's a pretty strong argument for the term not being SOP. Binarystep (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone is free to nominate a term for deletion, this is a democratic forum. (By the way, I was the who had the English entry RFD-kept.) The Russian nomination could of course be viewed independent of the English entry. Also, the English entry is probably useful due its contents, while the Russian entry is a useless SoP & encyclopedic entry. And most importantly: the English entry is also useful as a translation hub, because it contains a valid Vietnamese translation, mã. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- But you're the one that nominated it after the English discussion ended in keep... Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think a Russian speaker can better judge whether it be SoP or no than either of us. Anyway, it's worth noting that there’s no Chinese entry for Chinese numeral. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was consensus to keep it. I don't see why this should be treated any differently. Nominating an entry based on a hunch about usage where you self-admittedly "don't know" is extremely dubious. Theknightwho (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t know, but maybe the Anglophone world is more likely to deal with the topic than Russophones. I had actually nominated English Chinese numeral for deletion, but there was no consensus for its deletion. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedied, as the creator of the article agrees that it is SoP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is there actually a policy that the creator of an entry can unilaterally decide to speedy-delete it even if the community thinks it should be kept or at least debated in a discussion? It's not like this is something that was just created and the author realizes it's wrong; this has been here since 2013. 70.172.194.25 20:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there’s an unofficial policy to do so; see #z pamięci, Talk:Simi Valley Rapist. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those are not the same The stipulation is "if the community votes keep". Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, I would not say there was an overwhelming consensus to keep before the creator chimed in. But of the other two people who commented, other than the nominator and creator, there seemed to be definite lean toward keeping. (I don't have a strong opinion on the particular entry, it just strikes me as odd that someone can show up 9 years later and override the outcome of a community discussion. And what if other people had edited it in between?) 70.172.194.25 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, but outside the question raised (even though it's about this specific thing). I just didn't want to compare apples to oranges. Vininn126 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, I would not say there was an overwhelming consensus to keep before the creator chimed in. But of the other two people who commented, other than the nominator and creator, there seemed to be definite lean toward keeping. (I don't have a strong opinion on the particular entry, it just strikes me as odd that someone can show up 9 years later and override the outcome of a community discussion. And what if other people had edited it in between?) 70.172.194.25 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those are not the same The stipulation is "if the community votes keep". Vininn126 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there’s an unofficial policy to do so; see #z pamięci, Talk:Simi Valley Rapist. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is there actually a policy that the creator of an entry can unilaterally decide to speedy-delete it even if the community thinks it should be kept or at least debated in a discussion? It's not like this is something that was just created and the author realizes it's wrong; this has been here since 2013. 70.172.194.25 20:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)