Talk:Isländerinen

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.

---

Citations:Isländerinen

This has a wrong title, Isländerinen. The correct one should be Isländerinnen. I could have moved it but the cited material has the same errors because the texts predate the German orthography. --MaEr (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How does the 1973 book predate German orthography? -- Liliana • 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just follow the links :) The 1973 book is a reprint of an eighteen-something book. --MaEr (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Anyway, keep. Valid. Not sure what else to say, really. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

When I run books.google.com for "Isländerinen" I get exactly the two citations that are listed on this citations page. The second one is highly susceptible as it contains at least (I say "at least" because I don't know the adjective "rossetummelnd". It is probably real, though, meaning something like "able to ride fast") three other typos. Reads: "Vile nordische Sagen wissen von rossetummelnden Frauen zu erzälen, und noch heut reiten die Isländerinen fast bei jedem Ausflug." Should read: "Viele nordische Sagen wissen von rossetummelnden Frauen zu erzählen, und noch heute reiten die Isländerinnen fast bei jedem Ausflug." The year 1973 is wrong, the original is from 1872. So, there's only one (maximum two) quotation and three are required => delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't obsolete spellings fall under a similar treatment as extinct languages? It's unlikely that these spellings will ever be used again, so their obsolescence speaks in favour of keeping simply because they're used yet unlikely to ever have 3 citations. —CodeCat 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly obsolete either. When I run google.books.com for "Isländerinnen" I get 1020 citations. Already on the first page there are three from 1800's, and the oldest one dates back to 1769. "Isländerinen" is most likely just plain wrong.--Hekaheka (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea behind citations is (according to me): to have a certain evidence that a word exists, and to show how it is used. But currently we don't have a lemma for Isländerinen. If we create it the problem is solved (at least for me) but it wouldn't be a useful lemma.

The orthography is slightly heterodox because the author follows different rules than modern texts. It's not wrong to have such a lemma but far from useful. --MaEr (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, it opens up a whole new line of useless entries: Französinen, Finnländerinen, Engländerinen etc., which can all be cited equally "well" as Isländerinen. Wouldn't the energy wasted for this discussion be much better used if it was spent on creating proper citation pages for Citations:Isländer and Citations:Isländerin? --Hekaheka (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hekaheka, I doubt that any of the heterodox spellings in "Vile nordische Sagen wissen von rossetummelnden Frauen zu erzälen, und noch heut reiten die Isländerinen fast bei jedem Ausflug" is a typo (or even a misprint, since the text is printed, not typed); rather, they are all obsolete spellings (heut is of course more than just a spelling variant of heute, and it's still found in nonstandard dialectal German). The fact that two-n Isländerinnen was the more common spelling even in pre-1901 texts doesn't mean that one-n Isländerinen is a mistake even by contemporary standards. I notice that one of the b.g.c. cites shows the one-n spelling being used three times, which to me strongly suggests it was done on purpose. I have no objection to the creation of a lemma Isländerinen marked as an obsolete alternative spelling of Isländerinnen (and likewise for any other attestable word in -inen that today is spelled with -innen). —Angr 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

All right, it won't probably do much harm as long as it is not linked to Isländerin. Linking would easily mislead an unsuspecting user, especially as we have no citations for the standard spelling. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the citation page. What has been sent to RFD here is the citations page. Citations pages are there to hold citations even for terms that have only two of them. Isländerinen (the corresponding main namespace page) is redlinked, as it probably should. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why the hell did you nominate a citations page for deletion? Just do this. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Move to Citations:Isländerinnen and Redirect; Wiktionary:Citations says "Unlike the main space, inflected forms and alternate spellings should be redirected to the primary entry." If we have no citations for the standard spelling, and that concerns you, then cite it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with that sentence of Wiktionary:Citations; I find it odd to cite all obsolete spellings of, say, "knowledge", on the single citations page of "knowledge". The sentence has been added to the page by DAVilla in 2007; there is no evidence that the sentence has been discussed, let alone agreed upon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, what a surprise, that Wiktionary is ill-documented and what documentation there is isn't agreed upon. Frankly, if it's stood for five years, I think it's about time we start taking it seriously, with the alternative being actually taking action to reform it. Random editors should have be able to trust the explaining documents.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• To some extent, the page reflects how terms were cited before the existence of a Citations: space. For instance, therefor used to house a quotation spelled therefore whose more recent deletion is reprimandable. Yes, some alternative spellings could probably be put on separate pages, however not all. I wrote the line on that draft policy and there was some thought that went into it. Where the discussion has run off to I don't know.

  Exact spelling cannot always be determined from a quotation, for instance if the word is divided at the end of a line and it is unclear if the author would have hyphenated it midsentence, or if a word is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence and it is unclear if it might always be. Sometimes a cite is given to demonstrate spelling, and sometimes definition, and for the latter we could accept inflected forms. Yet inflected forms do not always demonstrate spelling differences. For instance, buggies could be a plural of buggy or buggie. Rather than risk a term being deleted because its citations are scattered all over heck, it's better to consolidate them.

  What happened is that the Citations tab was added after the namespace was approved and without any discussion whatsoever by a proponent of the each spelling gets its own page philosophy. I will grant you that I was and almost certainly still am in the minority and that there could probably be many compromises to work out a viable solution. If I had been stubborn it is because I suspect that what goes into any decision has less to do with rational argument and more to do with groupthink. I can name at least one other proposal that was shot down on sight just because a hotheaded admin thought we don't do things that way. Anyways, the role of this line of reasoning on that policy page may have been very limited.

  At this point I would prefer if people just do what they think best. The Citations space has grown beyond the nurturing of a few dedicated quotation hunters and I fully support and trust any investigation into its policy. DAVilla 19:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)