Talk:I need a map

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

"I need …" phrasebook entries

I need a map, I need a pencil, I need a toothbrush, I need an umbrella, I need clothes, I need Internet access, I need privacy, I need soap

In that case these (and probably others) as well, unless this is another part of the global anti-smoking campaign. --Thrissel (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If I'm asked, delete the whole g-mn phrasebook! --Hekaheka (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I second that emotion. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Anyone want to create I need a separate Wikimedia project? Equinox ◑ 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

lol! - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

global anti-smoking campaign? Here, I created I need weed to counter the anti-smoker bias. -- Liliana • 19:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete all —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete and create I need a clue especially for Daniel Carrero. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow…that was uncalled for. --Æ&Œ (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. Would any like to have my proxy to vote "delete" on RfDs about other entries that have been included solely because of the phrasebook "project"? Is there a way to use AWB to speed mass voting? Should mass phrasebook-entry deletion go to WT:BP and/or a vote. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think we need a separate RFD page for this crap. --WikiTiki89 14:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well that discussion degraded quickly. How awful. Really, if one isn't going to be a productive participant of the phrasebook, don't participate, but please don't drag all discussion down to the level seen above. --Yair rand (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

People who did this made their opinion invalid. If they don't care about other people's opinion and prefer to talk nonsense, flooding or abuse, they don't have the right to delete pages, not before there is any agreement. Not interested or don't like it? Just stay away and do something productive. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with bd2412, we should move these entries into the appendix namespace rather than completely deleting them; I hereby clarify my vote. That said, the community has every right to gather here and vote to delete pages like this; that's how RFD works. It's not a few uninvolved passersby who've voted; all nine users favouring deletion (This-that, Davilla, Mglovesfun, Metaknowledge, Hekaheka, SemperBlotto, Equinox, DCDuring and me) have spent years building up Wiktionary and all but one are admins. (The four voting "keep" are all longtime admins, too.) The suggestion that only people who like the phrasebook can validly vote on the phrasebook is quite an attempt at vote-rigging. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: actually, I'd prefer moving it to an appendix as well. Oh, and as a minor note, I haven't even been here that long, so I don't deserve the label that I "spent years building up Wiktionary". My 1-year anniversary is in a month :) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of individual phrasebook entries often turns into unproductive mockery of the phrasebook efforts. I don't think people have every right to vote, вчо may have spent years in building Wiktionary but spent little or no effort in improving phrasebook and use the RFD pages for mocking the whole idea, rather than improving it. Constructive suggestions or arguments (negative and positive) are welcome but "nuke the entire phrasebook", "crap" are not helpful or productive at all. People who dislike the phrasebook may think they just get distracted by these requests, I don't know why this attitude. So, my suggestion is to keep to the point or not post, if it's too hard not to show the disgust. The phrasebook project is still new, doesn't have sufficient rules and defined CFI but it's only at Wiktionary where it fits - in the main space, not in appendices. Deleting some or all of the mentioned entries is fine but the RFD discussion on individual phrasebook entries tends to move into deleting the whole project or ridiculing one of its advocates - Daniel Carrero, in this case. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"If you don't like it, don't use it/read it" etc. is a fallacy. Reminds me of those people who say "if you don't like (something about America), get out." Why do we have voting at all if those who dislike things are to be shunned? Equinox ◑ 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense if this were a vote about the phrasebook. However, this is a deletion discussion for a number of entries. So arguments for or against the phrasebook as a whole are misplaced here. It makes those who speak up against the phrasebook come across as rather whiny because they complain at every turn without actually taking action in support of their complaints. As Dan Polansky already noted below, nobody EVER tried to propose amending CFI to remove the phrasebook from Wiktionary. In fact I think it speaks for him that he had the sense to start a vote while everyone else above who complained about the phrasebook did not. Maybe you should learn from it. —CodeCat 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• • We can provide useful phrases without necessarily having them in entry space. That's what appendices are for (at least in part). Also, there must be some sensible cutoff. Should we include I need a turnip? I need a translator? I need a bandana? bd2412 T 02:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No, possibly, and no, but it's hard to build a cutoff if we can't have a discussion about where it should be without nearly half the comments being that the phrasebook shouldn't exist. --Yair rand (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have created I need ... and ik heb ... nodig as a substitute for all of those entries. If we agree to keep them, I vote delete on all these, else keep. —CodeCat 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@Æ&Œ I didn't think it was uncalled for given the context. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't find this sort of discussion unproductive, basically we're saying "the phrasebook is making a mockery of itself and the way to turn it back into a serious product is by pruning out all the rubbish entries". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume that you say that because he made these entries? I consider Daniel to be a kind, intelligent contributor. You appeared to have been insulting his intelligence, which is hardly necessary for the discussion, is it? (But there is no point in complaining since this project’s history shows time and time again that personal attacks are perfectly acceptable.)
>In before somebody randomly chastises me for perpetuating a conservation he doesn’t like.
On an unrelated note, I find it amusing how this whole page is categorized with Category:en:Drinking. --Æ&Œ (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks are never acceptable. --Yair rand (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

LULZ, using a draft page as a reference for anything. Pointless wastes of bandwidth. All that matters is ‘common practice.’ Guess what the common practice is for interacting with users on Wiktionary. --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep at least some of them. Entries with placeholders, like I need ... might be problematic with some languages with grammar completely different from Indoeuropean. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

tarvitsen ... contains some grammar notes, and ich brauche ... includes the article in the correct case and gender where appropriate. Presumably we can include notes in any of the pages. —CodeCat 14:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I need a map, I need a pencil, I need a toothbrush, I need an umbrella, I need clothes, I need Internet access, I need privacy, I need soap, until someone provides an actual rationale for deletion. I find "I need ..." a poor substitue. We probably do not need all the "I need ..." entries, but that needs to be figured out. They do not harm anything, AFAICS. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  By the way, I can't find any vote proposing to entirely ditch the phrasebook inclusion option, which would be achieved by removing this from WT:CFI: "Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What’s your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.". The only related vote that I can find is this: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Phrasebook_CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm torn on this. What I don't understand is why half the people here seem to be chasing and deleting SoP compound nouns while the other half seem to be involved in hoarding SoP verbal phrases. I don't understand why we at the same time can't have Internet access (from what I've seen I have little doubt it would be deleted as an SoP if created) but can have I need Internet access. I don't understand how is having I need soap, I need a pencil or I need a postcard more "useful to non-native speakers" than having mobile app, kidney failure or smoking section above which will apparently fail, dark green, online pharmacy or get on with it which already have, or closing time, set the tone or peasant revolt (also apparently about to fail), which may be SoPs in English but can't just be translated word-for-word into other languages - closing time in German isn't closing time but closing hour or even police hour, you can't just take any Dutch translation we have for peasant and any we have for revolt, put them together and get the Dutch for peasant revolt, and so forth. --Thrissel (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. Maro 16:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

deleted all -- Liliana • 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)