Talk:empty promise
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFD discussion: December 2020–March 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
SOP: see empty sense 5: "Destitute of effect, sincerity, or sense; said of language" (empty threats, empty words, empty thanks, etc.). I added a French translation, but it's not entryworthy either. PUC – 22:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per lemming principle. DonnanZ (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as SOP. Imetsia (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- CoBuild does not have an entry with a definition; they just have example sentences. Why don't we just add a couple of usage examples and be done with it.
- IOW, Delete. DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- “empty promise”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Original discussion: Talk:empty promise
- Undelete >SOP — Dentonius 12:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, undelete. I voted keep before. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Undelete of course. It is a set phrase or common collocation at worst, and should be kept. I see the destroyers are crawling out of the woodwork again. Why don't "they" build? There are endless red links and unregistered words and phrases to be added. Petty-mindedness at work. I call it as I see it. -- ALGRIF talk 17:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, let's put things into perspective.
Algrif: 2855+ entries created vs.PUC+aliases: 4958+ entries created+1756+ entries created+796+ entries created. - Conclusion: idiocy at work. I call it as I see it. Goodbye. PUC ~ 212.224.225.25 19:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you think those figures show. I call your stupidity as you display it! PUC off -- ALGRIF talk 19:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I see it, RFDs by IPs should be disallowed. We like to know the true colours of the nominator. DonnanZ (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- What RfD are you referring to? DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- idle threat just above. It's obviously the same user who commented above in this undeletion request with IP# in the 212.224 series. DonnanZ (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- PUC, those statistics mean nothing. It doesn't answer any of these things: (1) How much time does he dedicate to this hobby? How much do you? (He was inactive for a while as well. You need to adjust to factor that in.) (2) What have you personally removed from this website? What has he? (3) How many constructive edits has he made to other pages which he didn't create? How many have you? (4) It's easy to go for quantity when creating pages here: head-word and definition. But what about quality? The numbers you've shown don't prove what you're saying. Let's not forget that there are other ways to be constructive here which don't necessarily involve editing pages. And don't forget, some of us contribute on other wikis too. — Dentonius 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, forget about the childish dickwaving. I shouldn't have brought that up. Let's simply focus on the absolute figure: I've created more than 7000 entries (sorry if they're not to your satisfaction). Now, reread Algrif's statement: "I see the destroyers are crawling out of the woodwork again. Why don't "they" build? Petty-mindedness at work." A bit shortsighted and imbecilic, don't you think? PUC – 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- What's the stats for your RFDs under your various guises over the years? DonnanZ (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, forget about the childish dickwaving. I shouldn't have brought that up. Let's simply focus on the absolute figure: I've created more than 7000 entries (sorry if they're not to your satisfaction). Now, reread Algrif's statement: "I see the destroyers are crawling out of the woodwork again. Why don't "they" build? Petty-mindedness at work." A bit shortsighted and imbecilic, don't you think? PUC – 22:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- PUC, those statistics mean nothing. It doesn't answer any of these things: (1) How much time does he dedicate to this hobby? How much do you? (He was inactive for a while as well. You need to adjust to factor that in.) (2) What have you personally removed from this website? What has he? (3) How many constructive edits has he made to other pages which he didn't create? How many have you? (4) It's easy to go for quantity when creating pages here: head-word and definition. But what about quality? The numbers you've shown don't prove what you're saying. Let's not forget that there are other ways to be constructive here which don't necessarily involve editing pages. And don't forget, some of us contribute on other wikis too. — Dentonius 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- idle threat just above. It's obviously the same user who commented above in this undeletion request with IP# in the 212.224 series. DonnanZ (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- What RfD are you referring to? DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, let's put things into perspective.
- Stay deleted. @Imetsia, DCDuring —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stay deleted, SOP. Even setting that aside, why would we want to upend a vote that we concluded barely more than two months ago? Imetsia (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stay deleted, per deletion discussion. I also note that, contra @Donnanz, Wiktionary is a lonely lemming among references at “empty promise”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak undelete, per Donnanz. I agree it's a set phrase (usually not a very strong reason for keeping for me) and also that it's SOP, but a lemming's a lemming.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stay deleted, per Imetsia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't originally going to make any further comments here. However, PUC brought up his beautiful statistics. World-beating statistics. Bot-made statistics. Here is just a random look-up. See what you make of it. I would recommend summary deletion of primary tense, open-ended contract, or that PUC puts his money where his mouth is and completes his entries. I would also suggest a closer look at his unbeatable record. Sorry Mr PUC, but you asked for this. -- ALGRIF talk 22:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Algrif: First of all, I apologise for my previous messages; calling you an idiot was... idiotic.
- I never said I had an "unbeatable record" (not quite sure what you mean by that), or that my entries were "complete". Also, as you will have noticed, I'm not a native speaker of English; for that reason, I don't feel comfortable writing definitions in English from scratch. So yes, I make heavy use of
{{rfdef}}when I'm creating English entries, in the hope that a native speaker will fulfil those requests. I don't see how that warrants summary deletion. - However, that does not mean I consider "my" entries immune to deletion. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate them for deletion myself, as I feel they all belong in some way (otherwise I wouldn't have created them). But if you think they should be deleted, feel free to RFD them.
- That being said, please understand my frustration, and why your comment really made my blood boil. I don't consider myself "petty-minded", and I'm not trying to "destroy" anything. My goal here - like everyone else's - is to make the dictionary better. That means creating new entries, of course (and I think I've done my fair share of that, as I was trying to show with the figures above). But for me, that also means getting rid of cruft. And SOP entries are, imo, a prime example of cruft. Not always, as other considerations may apply, but most of the time. (About that: pace certain people, the SOP rationale is not "Wiktionary's worst enemy": it's a common sense principle. If someone thinks we should get rid of it altogether, they haven't thought things through and haven't pushed their line of thought to its logical conclusion.)
- So, maybe I'm dead wrong here, and maybe this entry definitely deserves to stay/be restored, but as things stand, I just don't see it, sorry. First, I don't see how it's not SOP (see empty, sense 5). All right, but as I said that's not the only consideration there is. However, in the present case, I don't see any other particularly compelling argument to keep the entry. Does that make me a "destroyer"? 212.224.224.126 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe you are a destroyer. In small numbers, you are useful. In large numbers (the present situation), you're a menace. You band together and destroy whatever you don't like. There are simply too many of you. Your English is excellent, by the way, 212.224.X.X. My command of other languages isn't nearly as good as your command of English yet it doesn't stop me from providing definitions on other Wikis. Other people pitch in and correct when I make mistakes. — Dentonius 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment 1. Can we stop the personal attacks, please, and stick to the substance of the matter. Mihia (talk)
- Comment 2. empty promise, idle threat and air resistance are IMO prime examples of why we need a better set phrase / common collocation policy -- something that will allow proper treatment of these undeniable-set-phrase-yet-explicable-as-sum-of-parts combinations. Mihia (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mihia, in BP I proposed more than one way to deal with this phenomenon. Only a few listened. — Dentonius 09:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stay deleted. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stay deleted, only a single lemming is not enough imo, also =SOP. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Undelete' - a set phrase with a unique meaning more than SOP. Definitely something a learner of English or first-time encounterer would look up. Facts707 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Stays deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)