Talk:married couple
Latest comment: 6 years ago by -sche in topic RFD discussion: March–April 2018
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.
- Delete as sum of parts, per discussion for gay couple. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would keep this, if not just for the translations. A gay couple may or may not be a married couple of course, which is why the entry doesn't say it's a man and woman as a married couple (but it normally is). DonnanZ (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as a translation hub. In particular, I think this can also house
{{qualifier}}-ed translations that mean "gay couple" or "straight couple"/"husband and wife" if either of those entries is deleted. - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)- It passes the lemming test anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Translation hub" seems a poor excuse to keep a sum-of-parts entry, unless there is a specific Wiktionary policy for this. There are a lot of non-English terms that do not translate directly into English, and would require sum-of-parts entries like this. A word translating into English as "married couple" could also presumably be translated as "married pair," "couple who is married," etc., all of which can be defined using the individual parts, without needing a new English Wiktionary entry. Such translations are best organized instead in a Wiktionary multilingual phrasebook of terms for relationships. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The argument that something should be kept as a "translation target" or "translation hub" is moderately often encountered at RFD in cases where something is a single word or unexpected phrase in a lot of languages, especially ones which would not otherwise use single words for sum-of-parts compounds. There was some support for adding it to CFI, but as far as I recall there's no overarching policy one way or the other and the community makes case-by-case decisions. (I don't always agree with everything that's kept, but I imagine other people don't always agree with everything that's deleted, c'est la vie.) Dan Polansky can probably say more about it. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- In theory, I would support this as Wiktionary policy, except that in highly synthetic languages (such as German or Nahuatl), there are very large number of one-word terms that would cause a very large number of unnecessary English terms being added. I never liked Wiktionary:SOP in the first place though. The more inclusive the better in my opinion, but consistency is important. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The argument that something should be kept as a "translation target" or "translation hub" is moderately often encountered at RFD in cases where something is a single word or unexpected phrase in a lot of languages, especially ones which would not otherwise use single words for sum-of-parts compounds. There was some support for adding it to CFI, but as far as I recall there's no overarching policy one way or the other and the community makes case-by-case decisions. (I don't always agree with everything that's kept, but I imagine other people don't always agree with everything that's deleted, c'est la vie.) Dan Polansky can probably say more about it. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- If married couple is a valid entry, then we also need to add unmarried couple. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do we, though, or is that a slippery slope fallacy? Is it as common a phrase and does it have as many idiomatic translations? - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- It would be needed both as an antonym, and also as a synonymous term for such phrases as "living in sin." However, I propose that all of these sum-of-parts terms just be ported into Appendix:Relationships instead. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- There are many idiomatic terms whose antonyms are SOP, and can be listed (in married couple) as "unmarried couple" without having an entry. AFAICT languages are less likely to have idiomatic translations for "unmarried couple" than "married couple", and the term is less set, so it has less merit and we needn't slide down any slopes towards it. - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- It would be needed both as an antonym, and also as a synonymous term for such phrases as "living in sin." However, I propose that all of these sum-of-parts terms just be ported into Appendix:Relationships instead. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do we, though, or is that a slippery slope fallacy? Is it as common a phrase and does it have as many idiomatic translations? - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The translation argument is imo important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP, and I'm not convinced by the translation hub argument here; it's slowly getting out of control. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as a translation hub: Czech manželé, Spanish matrimonio, and more. A vote is at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs, designed to keep some translation hubs while preventing overflood. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Has anyone heard the idiom sound like a married couple? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)