Talk:two beers, please
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
Nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, how exactly is it nonsense? --Yair rand (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's ok. =) --Diego Grez 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sum of parts. If adding [[Category:English phrasebook]] to any entry makes it immune from being rfd'd, why not create I'd like a beer, a packet of peanuts and a gin and tonic for the lady? Knowing Rising Sun, he probably created this as a satire. The problem is, the phrasebook is becoming so frivolous that the satires aren't any more frivolous than the 'genuine' entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Reminds me that phrasebook should be separate from word entries. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, appendix only, or create a new namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why? --Yair rand (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- The purpose of a dictionary (to define words and specifically idiomatic phrases) is different from the purpose of a phrasebook (to provide non-idiomatic phrases that happen to be (considered) useful in certain real-life situations). They will trip each other up. Equinox ◑ 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- For reference, I have started Appendix:English phrasebook some time ago. --Dan Polansky 07:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why? --Yair rand (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, appendix only, or create a new namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I warned you guys this would happen ;) Delete, please, pending creation of real Phrasebook criteria. ---> Tooironic 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Phrasebook entries don't follow the same rules like SoP, see WT:PB. As in a paper phrasebook (Lonely Planet, etc.) common and useful phrase are chosen, not necessarily covering all possible combinations. See previous delete requests for phrasebook. Why do they keep coming up again? The CFI for phrasebook entries will be created - don't worry, suffice to say the entries are useful and have many supporters. Strong keep again. --Anatoli 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, pending creation of real Phrasebook criteria--Dmol 23:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I say keep, it doesn't makes any harm =) --Diego Grez 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep. If someone wants to propose a Phrasebook CFI, go ahead. IMO, we could go a while longer without any phrasebook rules. --Yair rand (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mglovesfun, don't worry. Satire phrases will be deleted, I will personally make sure they are. We had a discussion about including obscure languages in the "I don't speak..." series, no need to exaggerate with your "peanuts" examples. --Anatoli 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, before somebody adds one beer please. --Hekaheka 06:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - totally pointless. SemperBlotto 07:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- keep as creator. I've seen this in real phrasebook before, I didn't create this satirically. Our phrasebook needs space and time to evolve --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised anyone is saying to keep this. Strong delete pending phrasebook CFI. —msh210℠ on a public computer 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Abstaining, per DCDuring (below).—msh210℠ 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. If my penis phrase doesn't live, this should go too. I am being vindictive. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Rising Sun. At some point in the past somebody (possibly me) suggested that the Phrasebook CFI should require presence in two or more "real" phrasebooks. "Two beers please" easily meets that criterion: [1] [2] [3]. (Incidentally, so does "two more beers please"). This appears, in fact, to be part of the canonical set used in all/most Rough Guide dictionary-phrasebooks (and is also found in others, so meets the independence criterion). All other things being equal, I'm inclined to trust Rough Guide's judgment more than my own when it comes to what does or doesn't belong in a phrasebook. Incidentally, my b.g.c. search also turned up some fun reading on the question of the use value of "two beers please" in a phrasebook. -- Visviva 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Visviva. Lemmings rule! At least until we have superseding Phrasebook CFI. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Of course, this sentence might be included in a phrasebook. But it makes no sense as a separate page. This is why defining how the phrasebook should be organized is so important. See the Beer Parlour (the most appropriate place for ordering two beers, anyway). Lmaltier 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why not as a separate page? The translations can be useful, it would be less useful if people had to piece things together from appendix information, the audio pronunciation of each of its translations would be useful, we have no space limitations or anything, why should this be deleted? --Yair rand (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Such sentences are included in phrasebooks only as examples, to be adapted to your situation. These examples are grouped by typical situations, and this makes them useful. But nobody will ever try to find this page, because nobody will expect it to be present, no more than three beers, please, ten beers, please, or four apples and five oranges, please. Yes, this information might be useful (if you want to order beer), but it's completely useless here, as a separate page. This is why the phrasebook should be organized in such a way that it is useful, in such a way that useful information can be found easily. Only set phrases should be kept as separate pages, because they are constituents of the language. Lmaltier 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Examples"? Meaning what, exactly? Eventually, we will have a category structure and appendices to help people find the various phrases, and people can search for them directly, and thus the phrasebook entries are useful. The phrases themselves are what's useful, not some pile of words that someone can attempt to adapt into situations, replacing words and making grammatical messes. The phrasebook should include common, usable phrases that someone would want to have information about. --Yair rand (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Such examples in phrasebooks are mainly intended to help with grammatical issues involved in some situation. If you want to order four beers in France, would you really try to find the translation of four beers, please in the Wiktionary? No, either you'll have a look at four, beer and please, or you'll consult a phrasebook in the appropriate chapter (how to order drinks or food), or you'll try an automatic translator. Such phrases are useful in phrasebooks, but I cannot imagine how this page can be useful to anybody. Lmaltier 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- The point of the phrasebook is so that people have a better option than piecing together words or relying on inaccurate autotranslators, and so that they can find out how to use those words. We might at some point have Category:English phrasebook:Ordering food or drinks, to enhance the usability of the phrasebook, but for now, we should try to add as many useful (by themselves) phrases as possible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, if only because "one beer", "two beer" and "five beer" might have different grammar for "beer" (and, oh, does it help to use the right grammar with a clearly foreign accent). --Erik Warmelink 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The point of the phrasebook is so that people have a better option than piecing together words or relying on inaccurate autotranslators, and so that they can find out how to use those words. We might at some point have Category:English phrasebook:Ordering food or drinks, to enhance the usability of the phrasebook, but for now, we should try to add as many useful (by themselves) phrases as possible. --Yair rand (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Such examples in phrasebooks are mainly intended to help with grammatical issues involved in some situation. If you want to order four beers in France, would you really try to find the translation of four beers, please in the Wiktionary? No, either you'll have a look at four, beer and please, or you'll consult a phrasebook in the appropriate chapter (how to order drinks or food), or you'll try an automatic translator. Such phrases are useful in phrasebooks, but I cannot imagine how this page can be useful to anybody. Lmaltier 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Examples"? Meaning what, exactly? Eventually, we will have a category structure and appendices to help people find the various phrases, and people can search for them directly, and thus the phrasebook entries are useful. The phrases themselves are what's useful, not some pile of words that someone can attempt to adapt into situations, replacing words and making grammatical messes. The phrasebook should include common, usable phrases that someone would want to have information about. --Yair rand (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Such sentences are included in phrasebooks only as examples, to be adapted to your situation. These examples are grouped by typical situations, and this makes them useful. But nobody will ever try to find this page, because nobody will expect it to be present, no more than three beers, please, ten beers, please, or four apples and five oranges, please. Yes, this information might be useful (if you want to order beer), but it's completely useless here, as a separate page. This is why the phrasebook should be organized in such a way that it is useful, in such a way that useful information can be found easily. Only set phrases should be kept as separate pages, because they are constituents of the language. Lmaltier 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Visviva. When the phrasebook leaves the mainspace, then this can be deleted. --Dan Polansky 06:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- New data: google books:"two beers please" shows me 420 hits; google books:"two beers please" intitle:phrasebook shows me 17 hits. --Dan Polansky 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No consensus: kept.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)