Talk:I need chopsticks

Politeness

Wouldn't "May I have..." or "I would like..." be more polite than "I need..."? 71.66.97.228 02:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

So? I need a condom, I need a doctor, I need an interpreter, I need a dictionary, I need a pencil, I need a compass, I need a taxi, I need a postage stamp, I need a lawyer, I need a postcard, I need an umbrella and I need a drink. After fulfilling these basic necessities, the thing that I'm missing is the chopsticks. When I'm done I need toilet paper, or else I need a diaper. What else am I going to need? Hmm. --Hekaheka 17:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny how we have I need chopstricks but no ...a fork, ...a knife, or ...a spoon.​—msh210℠ 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep, and create those fork, knife, spoon, etc... Heka is a phrasebook hater. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bear false witness against thy neighbor. I'm not a phrasebook hater. I just don't believe that a useful and usable phrasebook can be created simply by everyone adding whatever sentence occurs in his mind. Writing a phrasebook requires a different kind of discipline than writing a dictionary. We cannot expand "every word in every language" to "every sentence in every language". The result would be a mess. --Hekaheka 05:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep, and create msh210's examples. This might be phrased better as something like [[can I have some chopsticks, please]] or something like that, though... --Yair rand (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Indicates that the speaker needs a spoon". We need more of this stuff like an extra hole in the head! A phrasebook typically consists of entries which do not require explanations. That's one more reason why its place is not in the main namespace. --Hekaheka 11:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete I need chopsticks only because you can be stuck with chopsticks you don't know how to use and need a fork, but if you have a fork you don't need chopsticks: that's just a preference.

Delete I need a condom in preference of something like "You need to use a condom".

Strong keep for I need a doctor. Keep I need a lawyer.

Keep I need an interpreter as that's very obviously pertinent to a phrasebook, although it should be mentioned that most English speakers incorrectly say "translator".

Weak keep for I need an umbrella, I need toilet paper, I need a diaper

I need a drink has two meanings. I might keep it, but a better phrase for the likely intent is "I need a drink of water". We should have at least the latter if not both.

Not sure about the others, maybe delete in preference of a more polite phrase trailing with an ellipsis, except I need a taxi is okay because people who use taxis tend to make statements like that. DAVilla 07:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

This passed an RFD, though judging by Google Books, three durably archived citations might be quite hard. Google Books only has one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to verify. Are you saying that 'I need chopsticks' isn't in the English language? —CodeCat 12:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying per WT:CFI I'd like three durably archived citations, independent of each other. I can only get one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I might have voted differently on this with that info. DAVilla 16:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But you voted "delete" on this . . . are you saying you might have voted "keep" if you'd known it wasn't attestable? —Ruakh_TALK 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, sorry. But as a matter of fact it would have been a stronger delete. Man, I'm all over the board on this stuff, aren't I? Thank you to Msh210 for archiving the discussion. DAVilla 03:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't understood, why we have this, and most other "I need" entries in the first place. Being a sum of its parts, it has no linguistic interest, nor does it seem overly common as the lack of quotes shows. It does not require an explanation as the gloss reveals: "indicates that the speaker needs chopsticks". What else might it possibly be? It's not enough that somebody must have said it, somewhere. --Hekaheka 09:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Next time you bring a phrasebook entry to RFD, do so on the grounds that it's not overly common. You'll be more likely to get consensus on deletion. But so far the nominations have been everything that starts with "I like" indiscriminately, or the entire phrasebook itself, and the reaction to that is a knee-jerking no, we need a phrasebook, rather than an honest assessment of each phrase. DAVilla 16:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been citing some terms and got to this one, and realized that citing it would be absolutely ridiculous. We do not want to have phrasebook entries that can't be verified with three simple quotations. Phrasebook entries are supposed to be very common. Speedy delete or at least RFD again on these grounds. Finding a handful of citations for this is not going to prove a darn bloody thing. DAVilla 08:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed. Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)