Talk:グリーンピース
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Doesn't seem to be a household name or have attributive use like "Greenpeace types" in English. General Vicinity (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- (Greenpeace sense) General Vicinity (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know that it is a household name, but it is used to refer to the group as such, especially when they protest against Japanese whaling. I've added three quotations. Two refer to "the environmental group Greenpeace" (but then, so does the New York Times), and the other is in a book about environmental action, so some further discussion may be warranted. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- If we accept quotes like "X, an organization that Y's, did Z" it opens the door to an awful lot of companies etc. I don't think it shows they have "entered the lexicon" and Wiktionary's current stance seems much more restrictive (no entry for Walmart for example). General Vicinity (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding (possibly incorrect?) of Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Company_names is that we don't create entries for non-lexical company names. However, if we already have an entry that happens to match a company name, I don't know that this means we shouldn't include information about that company name as a lexical item (and not an encyclopedia article).
- For Walmart, we only have one thing that matches that grapheme -- the company name. Since there is no lexical item other than a company name that matches that grapheme, we don't have an entry.
- For グリーンピース (gurīnpīsu), we have two things that match that grapheme -- "green peas", and "Greenpeace". Since there is a lexical item other than a company name that matches that grapheme, we do have an entry. And since we have an entry anyway, it strikes me as perversely unhelpful to not include the name as well as the common noun.
- That's my two bits, at any rate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@General Vicinity, Eirikr This is cited, in as much as there are three independent instances cited from durably archived sources. It may or may not satisfy WT:NAMES, but I'm not sure if this is the best forum to discuss that problem. Can this request be closed, or is there more to say? Cnilep (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I myself don't see anything more to say, beyond "thank you!" for gathering the quotes. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
RFV passed. Both senses are cited. The sense Greenpeace is the name of a specific entity which is attested and is treated succinctly. While it may or may not be used generically, its inclusion here helps disambiguate the sense green pea, which is widespread. Further discussion can take place at WT:RFD/CJK if necessary. Cnilep (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)