Talk:environmental protection
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Is it an SoP? Also, the Chinese translation 環境保護/环境保护 (huánjìng bǎohù) (separate topic?). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would keep, just because this is protection of the environment, not protection from the environment. Also, in my pre-lawyering years, I once worked for a "Department of Environmental Protection", which is a fairly common term incorporated into such agency names. bd2412 T 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well environment meanings 'pertaining to the environment', so environment would mean 'protection pertaining to the environment' (not from the environment. It's a bit of an off-topic argument to be honest. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Set phrase. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Meh, so's green grass. What else are you going to call grass that's green? Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- You can call it Poaceae, of course. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd keep this for its usefulness. This a very widely used term and it's important to keep the central terms right in all languages. I can imagine that somebody would want to check a dictionary to find out the exact translation of "environmental protection" to another language. In Finnish, for example, one could generate at least these alternative terms: ympäristön suojelu. ympäristösuojelu, ympäristönsuojelu, ympäristönvarjelu, ympäristön varjelu. Only one of them is actually used in this sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per BD2412. Aryamanarora (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: per Toonironic, and because of the general ambiguity of the term noted by BD2412. Purplebackpack89 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
As above? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Set phrase. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I am the author. I added (Chinese, Japanese, Korean terms) because its Korean hangeul spelling 자연환경 (jayeonhwan'gyeong) was included in a Korean frequency list (Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Korean 5800) and the Chinese and Japanese forms also exist in some dictionaries. Are they SoP's? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Common collocation but sum of parts. We can add 自然環境 as an example at 自然 and 環境. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see much difference between 環境保護 and 自然環境 (as for CFI), the latter seems even a better candidate for the inclusion. If you use the lemming principle, it's also included (in not so trustworthy) dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well 环境保护 is in the 現代漢語規範詞典, Moedict and zdic, while 自然環境 is in none of them. These are the best lemmings we have for C-C, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I note we do have built environment. We could include its coordinate term natural environment, as well as the Chinese translations. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- For Japanese, I note that Daijirin includes the term. And FWIW, the JA Wikipedia and the online Britannica Japan encyclopedia also have entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see much difference between 環境保護 and 自然環境 (as for CFI), the latter seems even a better candidate for the inclusion. If you use the lemming principle, it's also included (in not so trustworthy) dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Both 自然の環境 and 自然な環境 sound awful. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. Opinions are clearly leaning to keep, and it is vanishingly unlikely that a consensus to delete can emerge. bd2412 T 16:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)