Last modified on 13 July 2014, at 17:22

Talk:Ampere定律

Return to "Ampere定律" page.

RFV discussionEdit

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


User:123abc's entries

As requested, I've painstakingly changed all of these entries to RfV. Believe it or not, this is the short list:

Basically, most or if not all these are Chinglish and/or sum of parts. All are incorrectly formatted. And, no, Googling is not an adequate way to see if they are attested as that will only tell you how prevalent Chinglish is on the Internet. Adding entries for even the most common Mandarin vocabulary on Wiktionary is a huge task, but if we are supposed to add almost any possible combination of English and Mandarin this magnifies it beyond belief.

The way I see it, User:123abc should probably be banned, as even after multiple communications with the user by myself and other contributors, s/he continues to add these useless and messy entries. This creates a huge amount of clean-up work for myself and the bare four or five other Mandarin contributors here. Tooironic 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak the language, but Alzheimer病 cannot be sum of part. So, it must be what you call Chinglish (but the definition in Chinglish does not cover this sense)? If these words are used in Chinese texts (and they clearly are, even in books), why should they be deleted? My feeling is that you don't like them, but it's an opinion, and we must keep neutral. Usual criteria should apply. Lmaltier 06:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And what criteria are you using? I implore you to find just one dictionary that translates Alzheimer's disease as Alzheimer病. And where are these books you speak of? You'll also find plenty of Google hits for "Chairman毛", "Bei京" and "kung夫" but that doesn't make them words. Tooironic 10:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The criteria don't include the presence in another dictionary, the important thing is that words have to be used. I don't know about the other examples you give, but Alzheimer病 is used, even in books (you can find many examples in Google books), and its only possible use is as a word meaning Alzheimer's disease. Lmaltier 12:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the three least attestable ones. 牛肉pie only gets about 150 Google hits, so that's also likely to fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Why your Google hits are different to my Google hits? My Google hits are 352. (123abc 02:22, Feb 7, 2010)
Being rare is not a reason to be deleted. 150 hits is not a proof, but a serious clue that the word does exist. Lmaltier 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Except... they're not Chinese words. They're Chinglish. Tooironic 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the standard is that if a word is regularly used in Chinese context, it's a Chinese word. (Look at WT:RFD#Ivrit.) --Yair rand 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is the only possible criterion for creating a section for some language (try to find a better one!) Lmaltier 08:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What is Chinglish? Are they Chinglish books? (123abc 01:57, Feb 7, 2010)
Then I stand corrected for Email地址 E-mail地址 e-mail地址. Good to see some evidence actually coming forward. How about the rest of them? Tooironic 09:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I've said on RFD. This isn't vandalism, if they are used, people may search for them, therefore we should keep them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Words with English abbreviations are legitimate (CD-+...), the rest are Chinglish. Although, they are used and can be found in Google, standard Mandarin doesn't work that way. Words with mixed scripts, where English names are spelled using Roman letters are often used by people who don't know how to write those names in standard Chinese, especially overseas born Chinese like "Alzheimer病". Google will give a lot of hits but it doesn't mean that it is a correct spelling.
--Anatoli 02:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Those of these terms that are unidiomatic (SOP), ought to be deleted (obv.), whilst those that are not ought to be kept iff 123abc or whoever can find the requisite three citations spanning at least a year in durably-archived media each. We should be strict about the time allowed for verification (i.e., they should only remain here without attestation until the 6th of March, at the latest). Those that are verified per the CFI ought to be reformatted thus:

  • Alzheimer病 = {{form of|Non-standard form|阿茲海默病|lang=zh}}

unless some convincing evidence can be provided for why they ought to be regarded as standard.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the idiomatic ones should be kept if there are three citations, that if used in Chinese they're Chinese. I also think that RFVing a bunch of entries without checking for citations, or which the nominator knows there are citations, and hoping no one does the work to cite them, is acting in bad faith. I'm tempted to say "keep all" for that reason, even if they are uncited, and though this is not a vote page. I would cite them myself, but don't know enough Chinese (I known none, actually) to know when they are being used and when mentioned, etc.​—msh210 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To decide on this, people should know how Chinese works and what is acceptable and what is not in standard Mandarin. You may find a lot of citation of English words in Roman letters within Chinese text, these words don't become Chinese. In Einstein相对论, only 相对论 is Chinese, Einstein is not. --Anatoli 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of these entries have been deleted already, mostly pursuant to RFD discussions. Those that haven't, are hereby kept. If there are any specific ones that you think are not attestable, feel free to RFV them individually; but some of these get hundreds of b.g.c. hits, and overall it looks like these should have been RFD'd rather than RFV'd. —RuakhTALK 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussionEdit

I have archived all of the related discussions here; I will place links to this central archive on the other talk pages. — Beobach 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ampere定律Edit

Darwin主义 et alEdit

Darwin主义者, Einstein相对论, Esperanto主义者, et al ==

Regardless of whether these are SopS, we should not include all possible combinations of Chinese and English together unless it is a fixed expression, but this is not the case with these entries. Strong delete. Tooironic 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A question, are these multi-word entries? If not shouldn't they be at RFV as they might be attestable despite the bizarreness. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
delete. No, they are not. 主义 -ism, 主义者 -ist, even 相对论 (theory of relativity) is not to be used this way in standard Mandarin but 爱因斯坦广义相对论 (Àiyīnsītǎn guǎngyì-xiāngduìlùn), adding 广义 (general or wide sense). 广义相对论 is commonly used with 爱因斯坦 (Einstein), less common just 相对论. --Anatoli 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Esperanto主义者 gets six hits, all Wiktionary related so that wouldn't pass an RFV. The others are very rare as well. Delete just for that reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that these are considered Chinglish, each of the entries could be done in proper Mandarin in Hanzi only, without Roman letters. Usage of Roman letters in Chinese is restricted. Foreign names can be written just once in Roman letters for clarity. Anatoli 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, for a full list of these bizarre entries check out Category:Mandarin_nouns, they're right at the top due to incorrect formatting. Someone should try talking to User talk:123abc to get him/her to see some sense. I've tried on multiple occasions but failed. Tooironic 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Category:Words_which_mix_scripts
    Yes, User:123abc, I am aware of that category, but those entries are reserved for actual words and not just random combinations of English and Chinese. E.g., AA制, T恤 and 69式 are all fixed terms because you can't change those forms by replacing the English letters with Chinese characters, however Euclid几何, Lenin主义, cookie饼, etc, are not - they should be replaced by entries which are entirely in Chinese. Tooironic 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It has long been Wiktionary's policy to require a term or phrase to have at least three attested examples of use, in order to be included on Wiktionary. The original contributor attempted to use Google hits to satisfy this requirement. The problem is that while Google is an excellent language research tool, it often requires an expert to decipher the search results. My initial impression is that the above Google hits are mostly false positives, meaning that they by and large don't constitute valid examples usage by a typical native speaker. Tooironic's point about T恤 is well taken. One way to demonstrate this is to refine the search. For example, if you were to search for the term with the Google news tab, as opposed to the more generic web tab, you would find hits for terms such as T恤, but not for Euclid几何. -- A-cai 13:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
References for Euclid几何:
It seems from a quick google books search that Euclid几何 is clearly attested and idiomatic. Keep Euclid几何 and move the rest to RFV. --Yair rand 05:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, we seem to be making progress. 123abc, I get the impression that there was something about my response that you did not fully understand. Please let me know if this is the case, and I will attempt to clarify. So, Euclid几何 does seem to have passed one of Wiktionary's criterion for inclusion, attestation. The problem is that the phrase still seems to be a sum of parts entry. These types of entries are not allowed on Wiktionary. It would be the same as if someone tried to create an entry for blue bicycle. Unfortunately, by that logic, Euclidean geometry should not be allowed on Wiktionary either. -- A-cai 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

RfV them all. BTW, shouldn’t they be written as Euclid几何 &c., even if they are kept?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the ones that can't possibly pass, but RFV the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

pizza饼Edit

e-mail地址Edit

BASIC语言Edit

gamma射线Edit

telex机Edit

牛肉pieEdit

alpha射线Edit

The Chinglish continues. All of these have commonly used forms which are entirely in Chinese. Again, we should not include all possible combinations of Chinese and English together unless it is a fixed expression, but this is not the case with these entries. Strong delete. Tooironic 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete all. And block user if he persists in adding more. SemperBlotto 08:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that these phrases all have equivalents in Chinese script, however I think blocking this person is slightly premature. Maybe Tooironic could try to talk to him in Chinese? I just think we shouldn't take rash actions, before we get to know what his take is on this. JamesjiaoT C 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The unattestable ones should of course be deleted. But if they are word and in use, keep or move to RFV. Mixing wo scripts isn't an automatic reason to delete, but my Google searches show that a lot of these are way short of meeting our CFI anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Move to RFV. --Yair rand 05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
References
  • Look, I'm getting impatient. They should all be deleted, pure and simple. We don't have entries for chang Wall of China, Niǔ York, karaOK, super shìchǎng or feng水. Why? Because they're ridiculous. There is a reason why none of these words, in these forms, are in any dictionaries. And search engine hits are NOT references, they just show you how prevalent Chinglish is online. I would be more forgiving if all of these entries created by this user were in the correct formatting, but they're not, and the user has made no attempt to rectify this after multiple messages. If something isn't done I'm one hundred percent qingchu that he/she will keep doing this and us Mandarin contributors will be left to pick up the pieces (i.e. clean-up a few hundred pages when we could be doing something useful). Tooironic 10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep mix-script entries if idiomatic and attested. No comment on format of contributions. DAVilla 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  ...and...  

69式性交 et al.Edit

A/D转换器, CD-ROM扩展结构, CD-ROM播放器, CD-V视盘, CD-i光盘, CD-i扇区, CD-i播放器

More more more more Chinglish. Yay! Isn't this fun? All sum of parts. DELETE. Tooironic 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Google hits: CD播放器
Google Books: CD播放器, are they Chinglish books???

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

CD-i播放机 et alEdit

CD-i数字图像, CD-i数字音频, CD扩展, CD盒, C格式, I型光标, Mac操作系统, CD扩展

Chinglish SoP Part Two. DELETE. Tooironic 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alps山 & Alzheimer病Edit

Redundant. Chinglish. DELETE. (Polite question: How many more weeks will I have to waste my time with monitoring this user's vandalism until something is done about it?) Tooironic 07:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As an expert in being impolite, that was not a polite question. If you're going to be direct, just do it. :p — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
AFAICT all of these should be at RFV. If I knew more Mandarin I would comment more, but I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue for RFV. Keep and RFV if desired. Obviously anyone requesting verification of a term should do a search first to see if there's clearly attestation.​—msh210 17:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "Chinglish" character of these terms is not a reason to delete them, but a very strong reason to keep them (when they are actually used). Obviously, they are very special set phrases. Lmaltier 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep per above. DAVilla 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion of cookie饼Edit

Keep tidy.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


As with WT:RFV#Ampere定律. This one seems to have slipped through the cracks, having been tagged RFD, but not listed there (only mentioned in passing in another section). It also seems to be the last of its kind. I bring it to RFV rather than RFD because the consensus was to accept the terms if they could be verified. I can't find anything on Google Books. — Beobach 02:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed. Equinox 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


RFV discussion (2)Edit

Keep tidy.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


In looking through WT:RFC, and trying to clean up some of the oldest messes there, I found this discussion of "Chinglish" terms, which closed with the note "send to RFV". The RFV discussion, in turn, ended with Ruakh commenting: "A number of these entries have been deleted already, mostly pursuant to RFD discussions. Those that haven't, are hereby kept. If there are any specific ones that you think are not attestable, feel free to RFV them individually; but some of these get hundreds of b.g.c. hits, and overall it looks like these should have been RFD'd rather than RFV'd". I have searched for e-mail地址 and found that it, as discussed, was rightly kept as attested. I have found only one book that uses Ampere定律, however: I therefore (re-)nominate it. — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV-failed.


RFV discussion of pizza饼Edit

Keep tidy.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


This may be attestable: I find two books (1, 2) which use it. It needs a third, though. (Once this discussion is archived: cf Ampere定律.) — Beobach 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I find one quotation on Usenet. If someone adds the quotations to the entry, the word will barely pass. - -sche 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I added all three citations to Citations:pizza饼, but the last one doesn't seem to support the definition we have. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV-fails with only two citations? - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed, because it seems only two of the citations support the sense given. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)