Talk:Snotingaham
Which language is this? — This unsigned comment was added by Mike (talk • contribs) at 08:44, 5 August 2004.
- Looks like Old English. -dmh 17:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Moving over from rfd:
Do we really need every place name in every language? This dictionary will be so full of this stuff you'll never be able to search for anything. What validity has this entry got any way ? There are no sources quoted. Plus, this was listed for cleanup, some has cleaned it up (????), but not taken it off the Requests for Cleanup page. Sloppy.
I vote butt this stuff off the project. Show me one usage of this word in the last hundred years ! Only one hit on Google, in a scanned book.
It's a proper name, which needs no entry in a dictionary.
To me this is far worse than any protologisms.
But - if someone wants it, really wants it, then I guess it can stay. But, please clean up the CleanUp page!--Richardb 15:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Richard, there are plenty of proper nouns and place names in Wiktionary. They do belong here. There is no fixed upper limit on the number of entries that Wiktionary may have - once it is "complete" (which it never will be), there will be millions of entries. Remember that Wiktionary is also a translating dictionary, and there are many proper nouns and place names that are are spelled differently in other languages (for example, John and London). The number of words that are not proper nouns far, far exceeds the number of proper nouns (compare the number of entries in the OED with the number of entries in a book of baby names or an atlas).
- Recall too that Wiktionary's goal is to list all words in all languages. There is no restriction there on the obscurity or obsolence of a word.
- Having said that, I agree that minor place names probably do not have a place in Wiktionary. If Snotingahám is as obscure as you say (and I've never heard of it) then I would say it deserves to be removed. — Paul G 16:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 17:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)>
- The idea is that someone encountering a word in some text that they're reading should be able to find out what that word means or refers to by coming to the Wiktionary. If someone comes here and looks up Snotingahám, and we don't have it, then we are not functioning as a comprehensive resource. That said, it would be ridiculous to try to include all proper nouns, variations on words, misspellings, malaproprisms, etc., but if a place name sees even moderate use, there's no good reason not to have it. I think we shouldn't delete things we simply haven't heard of, but rather there should be a burden of proof that the place referred to really is extremely obscure. After all, if the Wiktionary only contained words that we knew, what good would it be? If you delete Snotingahám, and then I encounter it in some text, I should imagine I'd be sore at you :)
- In any case, I don't think we need to focus on eliminating obscure references. Instead we should simply remove vandalisms, typoes, and entries that are so bad that they need to be written from scratch to contain any useful information.
</Jun-Dai>
- (Jun-Dai beat me to it, but here is my comment.)
- Richard, having now looked at the entry, I see that it is the Anglo-Saxon for "Nottingham". If it is correct, then it certainly belongs in Wiktionary, as does any translation of "Nottingham" into any other language.
- The fact that there is only one citation for it, and that this citation is old, is not grounds for removal. The OED contains lots of words that have been found in only one place, and even some that have never been found in print at all.
- I therefore suggest that this page should not be deleted. — Paul G 17:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up and marked it as such on the Requests for cleanup page. — Paul G 17:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)