Talk:積極的

I feel the Chinese section may be sum of parts: 積極 + 的. Wyang (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang, Hongthay I feel that, too. That being said, tek doesn't seem to be used in Taiwanese like it's used in Mandarin. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–August 2017

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

積極的

How is this a noun?--115.27.203.95 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really sure. It's found in 台日大辭典, which only gives the definition (國) 積(せき)極(きょく)的(てき) (sekikyokuteki). The Taiwanese translation is given as （日）正面向前進取ê精神. It might be better to send it to RFV instead. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hongthay Any input on this would be appreciated. Wyang (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he just took this from TDJ. I did find two uses in the Digital Archive Database for Written Taiwanese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the earlier quotation actually uses ê after 積極的. This may indicate that it is not SOP. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Do you think this is a noun? If yes the definition should be improved. Also please confirm it's not a short form of SOP phrase (e.g. we don't have a entry for 老的 meaning old people).--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT from the two quotations, it's an adjective/adverb. I'm not sure what you mean by short form of an SOP phrase; I think 老的 merits inclusion. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• RFD kept: no consensus for deletion; one pro-deletion does not consensus make. The nomination would suggest correcting the part of speech rather than deleting this entry, which is entered as Chinese meaning "positive, active". If there is doubt about existence, WT:RFV can be used to challenge that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)