Talk:paternal half brother

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

paternal half brother

And several ones of the same theme, such as paternal cousin, paternal uncle, paternal aunt, paternal grandmother, paternal grandfather and. Sure (deprecated template usage) paternal is enough?
And for maternal: maternal cousin, maternal uncle, maternal aunt, maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather and maternal half sister. Really strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding maternal half brother. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It kinda seems a shame to delete them after seeing how much work the translators have gone through to tackle these terms. (The Chinese family tree in particular is a nightmare.) However I fail to see how any of them can be justified when they are so obviously SoP. Tooironic 22:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So, reluctant delete. Tooironic 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful and interesting. Keep. You cannot show how deleting these would improve the project. Deleting does not save storage space and serves no useful purpose. —Stephen 05:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Surely you can't be suggesting that we keep everything, including SoP's? I don't think anyone thought that deletions were to save a few bytes of the virtually unlimited storage space. --Yair rand 05:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No one has offered any rationale for deleting useful, thoughtful, and well written and formatted entries such as these. We know why we delete garbage, copyvios, threats, and so on, but no good reason for files such as this. As for SoP, it should not be the justification for deleting anything. If an entry is SoP and has nothing else to recommend it, then it should go; but just because it’s SoP, that should not count against it if it has some saving grace, such as being a set term or if it has educational or informational value, or, as in this case, it is contains linguistic that probably cannot reasonably be preserved and made useful and usable in some other way. SoP is only bad when that is all there is. —Stephen 06:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree with Stephen more. Ƿidsiþ 06:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, but I kind of think you could justify keeping almost any article that way. I dislike keeping stuff that doesn't meet CFI (and these are a mile short) just to add translations. This is a dictionary, not a translation project. But point duly noted. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All set phrases should be kept, because there is at least one interesting thing that should be mentioned: the fact that it's a set phrase. This fact cannot be guessed, and it's important to know it when you use the language. A dictionary is also useful when you try to build sentences, not only when you try to understand sentences. And remember that set phrases are not considered as words by typographers, but that, very often, they are considered as words by linguists. Lmaltier 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions: Talk:maternal_uncle, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2007/November#maternal_and_paternal_family_entries. -- Visviva 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete — hippietrail 04:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall point out that I wasn't actually aware of these discussions... and indeed there are some fraternal […] and sororal […] entries too. At some point, the reader has to be able to add two words together and understand what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

These seem to have failed, does anyone want to disagree? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the redundant three-word paternal half brother, maternal half sister, maternal half brother, but kept the two-word ones to accommodate very complex Chinese family tree that I am familiar.--Jusjih 01:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)