Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese nouns

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nouns

[edit]

This is appears to be a joke page, it uses complicated (but accurate) phrases to translate simple words which have English equivalents. For example: "傘 — this is a noun signifying a sort of device usually used to keep dry during a rainstorm". The normal translation for 傘 (kasa) is "umbrella". (wiktionary). It's funny though, could be userfied or sent to BJAODN. Kappa 09:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I move that the charges against my client be dismissed as he has just entered a rehabilitation program with the help of Mssrs Yamamoto Yitirou and Nathan Piazza, and most claims against him are no longer valid. --Node 00:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It is most definitely not a joke page. The "complicated phrases" are intended as descriptive definitions so that there can be no confusion regarding meanings. "kasa" for example can also translate to any number of English words which are more specific types of umbrella. (note for example that Wiktionary includes "parasol" and "parachute" although I would disagree with the latter) "Umbrella" in English is also used in many cases where it makes no sense in Japanese. (on wikt:umbrella, the second through fourth definitions are not accurately translated as "kasa")

Also, I challenge you to find a single one of these that is incorrect. Some here who don't seem to speak Japanese have said the page is wrong, or that there is some factual error, with some sort of authoritative air about them, yet all I can think of is that they are making a conjecture based on the lies Uncle G has been spreading and the implication of your original nomination that the "complicated phrases" are nonsensical or incorrect. (fixed by Kappa)

So while it may seem like a joke, this page is entirely serious. To those who think I'm trying to make this page into a dictionary, the list is intended only to be illustrative and never to be an exhaustive list of Japanese nouns - whether that even belongs at Wiktionary is questionable (as a category maybe) - because that would really suck and stuff. As you can see, nobody has added or removed any nouns to or from the list since I created the article. I know plenty of other Japanese nouns (曇, for example, is a noun referring to a sort of formation of condensation which, when seen in the sky, appears fluffy. but did I put that on there?), yet I have not put them there. --Node 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't intend to imply the "complicated phrases" were nonsensical or incorrect, I have amended the nomination to correct this impression. Kappa 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. This page serves a serious function. Linguistically, it is true that there is no exact semantic equivalent for any Japanese noun to any English noun or vice-versa. There isn't anything on the page that is non-factual, and it isn't unencyclopaedic. keep--Node 09:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your point at German modal particle has remained made for months, and since then we've had similar discussions on other articles written by Lost Lexicographers, concluding the same as you argued in November 2004. There's no need to perpetuate this article merely in order to keep making the point. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  • This page has some poor information on it. Speaking from a linguistic standpoint, it's very base. It needs some work, but it should be an article. I'll see what I can do. - Barfooz 09:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some work, but is facinating. --Commander Keane 13:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and bad translations aren't useful anyway. Perphaps put it on Takl:Japanese to see if anyone can mine something useful from it. --W(t) 14:32, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is a dictionary article - it merely has a short list of examples of Japanese nouns, and provides correct definitions, if not so-called "Exact" translations. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics. Article should only exist if it contains linguistically notable content (currently none) that is too long to fit in Japanese grammar. This article was created as hyperbole to make a point on Talk:German modal particle. Samples of current unencyclopedic content:
    • Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than do English nouns
    • Nouns are common in Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Tibetan, Burmese, Yi, and Chinese. They are also common in the O'odham language.
    • There are perhaps one thousand nouns in Japanese, and a list is included below.
-- Krubo 14:43, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
      • I don't see how any of that is unencyclopaedic: it is all 100% true. And as noted above, the fact that it was linked from the talkpage of the GMP article is meaningless. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the caveat that IANAL (linguist) - but given the comments on that other talk page, and the tone of this article, it sure smells like a joke to me. ESkog 15:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRANSWIKI and merge into the relevant Wiktionary articles. Perhaps it could be wholly transferred to Wikibooks? 132.205.45.148 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment betrays a profound lack of knowledge about Wiktionary. I recommend a visit to Wiktionary. A vast number of Japanese/Chinese articles were added to the English Wiktionary early on in its life. Its coverage of those languages is extensive. For your edification, I've interwiki linked some of the words in this list to the Wiktionary articles. I strongly suggest following them, and comparing the (deliberately) pathetic tripe that is in this article with the proper definitions that already exist at Wiktionary. This article is plainly a parody, created to make a point. Wiktionary has no need of it. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
      • 1) not a parody, 2) not created to make a point (if it were, would I be defending it?), 3) tell me a single definition in that list that is incorrect. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't there something about being nice to users? As for profound lack of knowledge (not nice), many many many articles on Wiktionary are not very good. There's no set standard for a Wiktionary article, so there's no consistent look to find a definition. Furthermore, doesn't the article under discussion provide nuances on the meanings of words? If you've looked in the OED, you'd notice some definitions akin to these. 132.205.15.43 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or just delete Redirect - Everything before the list is completely useless. The list is ridiculous - "this is a noun signifying a sort of sharp tool used to cut through things" for the word NAIFU, which if you can't tell comes directly from the English "knife" - as well as being unencyclopedic. Redirect as per Krubo, as people might look for the topic and the Japanese grammar article has the relevant information. -- Jonel 17:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC) (revised Jonel 00:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • The word "MANSYON" comes from the English word "mansion", but means "condo" (flat). Likewise, although "naifu" means "knife", it is not exactly the same semantically, and has different connotations psycholinguistically. --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrous. RickK 19:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next? Manx prepositions? Edeans 20:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even funny! Gmaxwell 21:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a joke. Brighterorange 23:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But neither is this article. The text above the list of definitions is completely useless. (Krubo's selection above comprises, ironically, some of the tamer parts.) The list of definitions of words, even if it were sensible, wouldn't belong in Wikipedia. But the list is pretty obviously, from reading Talk:German modal particle and looking at [1] (the version of German modal particle prior to the changes made by Node ue), making a point. Node ue's point has been made, and German modal particle has stood without the analogous content to this for months. Delete. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
    • I don't see what's wrong with a list of words to provide examples of Japanese nouns, and I also don't see what's wrong with a single one of my definitions - is not "kasa" a sort of device used to shield onesself from the rain?? --Node 01:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you do. You yourself articulated exactly what is wrong with this sort of article on Talk:German modal particle. When you entered an edit war with Dieter Simon over it you created this page, from your own redlink, as a section-for-section, if not sentence-for-sentence, parody of the version of German modal particles that you kept on attempting to remove. Your version of the article prevailed over the version that you parodied months ago. We can only guess why you don't want your parody to die. Uncle G 06:21, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
        • Again you are claiming to know me better than I know myself. I refuse to put up with that any longer. Your continued insistance that you are right about my feelings and motivations and that I am wrong is obviously a load of crap and on top of that is highly offensive. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense and even if it were true, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Megan1967 03:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also... what part of this article isn't true? Hmmmmmmmm?? --Node 01:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it /were/ a dictionary, there would be an article for each individual noun listed there. It isn't called "list of Japanese nouns", the list is merely a supplement to the article to illustrate the unique function of Japanese nouns which cannot be found in those of any other language - no other language's nouns sound quite as Japanese, and no language has all 1-to-1 correspondences with all of these unique function words. --Node 05:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant nonsense. Physchim62 14:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • いつまで日本語が勉強してましたか? If you can't answer that question directly without asking somebody what it means, I don't see what you base your judgement on. --Node 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, in case anybody asks, no, that really is what I meant to say. --Node 01:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Should this page exist? Should we have Japanese nouns about and with a list of Japanese nouns, or Bengali counting words? There is nothing different between the function of modal particles in German and in other languages. A list of German modal particles definitely does not belong here, any more than does a list of Navajo noun classifiers.
        And as noted above, a list does not belong here, even if this article does.
        Also as was said before, duplication of information at other, more generalised articles is frowned upon.
        And I will show you two policies, one that says Wikipedia is not a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for), and another that says we aren't trying to teach people slang or how to speak a foreign language, when combined they mean that a list in this article, at least at the length you have (two or three examples would be OK), belongs on Wiktionary or Wikibooks, and not on Wikipedia.
        • But I didn't ask that - Physchim62 said "blatant nonsense", not "should not exist". I disagree with both, but the former argument is practical whereas the latter is more philosophical --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with all of the above statements, which is why I would say "merge" to Japanese grammar#Nouns and other deictics if there were anything useful in the first part of the article ("Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than English nouns" is hardly informative or useful) and "transwiki" the list to Wiktionary if the definitions on the list were useful (a definition for naifu that could also be used for the English words "saw" or "axe", which are not meant by naifu, is not useful). -- Jonel 02:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly intended to be a parody. Or should I be more "accurate"? "Your collection of text which is supposed to be factual information appears to be instead a humorous reproduction of a previously developed collection of text and while it perhaps may be useful for you to attempt to make your argument from a previous page more clear it is not within the guidelines and other rules for this online encyclopedia project." --Fastfission 03:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is indeed more accurate. "intended to be a parody" does not include the information: "which is supposed to be factual information appears to be instead" (parodies aren't nessecarily "supposed to be factual", although they can be), "humorous reproduction of a previously developed collection of text" (this indicates that it is a text-based parody, and that it uses layout and sentence structure from the original, rather than having all-new text), "and while it may be useful for you to attempt to make your argument from a previous page more clear" (these alleged circumstances are not conveyed by "parody"), and "not within the guidelines and other rules for this online encyclopedia project" ("parody" does not imply that the content is nessecarily against the rules). That gave me a good laugh - what was intended to be sarcastic actually went the opposite direction than intended. Anyhow. It was not intended as a parody. If it were, I would've pointed out explicitly on Talk:German modal particles that "To show you just how rediculous this is, I have created blah blah blah blah blah blah blah", which I most certainly didn't. I simply changed my opinion regarding articles on parts of speech by language, and decided that Japanese nouns, a nonexistant page, should really exist in the interest of completeness, and so populated it with content. After all, if there are so many Japanese nouns and they are used by the millions on an hourly basis, doesn't that make them notable?? --Node 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Radiant_* 13:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The page is a description of roles and connotations that many Japanese nouns carry, and is meant simply to illustrate that no word has a definite one-to-one correspondence with its English "counterpart" like so many people seem to take for granted. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all Japanese nouns, either. And to answer your question like someone who understands it would, 二千年までにほんごをべんきょうしています。--sébastien 06:41, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or sort of transfer to BJAODN. --Fenice 17:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this article should be written in a more serious way, and be judged the article after it's well written before it gets deleted. --Yamamoto Ichiro 22:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 03:26, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it's considered reiteration when you didn't make the original comment yourself. That aside, the article to which Jonel links touches on Japanese nouns in a different aspect, ie nominal morphology (and syntaxis), and the rôle they play in the larger picture of Japanese grammar more than in their own right as does Japanese nouns. --Node 03:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — mind you Japanese nouns could be a valuable article, but the way it is now, it is rubbish. Besides, it looks suspiciously like WP:POINT to me. Apart from ridiculous sentences like "Although English nouns include words which refer to a specific object, Japanese nouns sound more Japanese than do English nouns, at least most of the time", and "Japanese nouns need to be learned in daily usage as there is practically no literal translation for any of the nouns other than that they help form the phrase which on the whole conveys the way the speaker intends to sound", it is written from a limited point of view, contains many pointless comparisons to the English language, and is generally unencyclopedic. — mark ✎ 07:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Japanese_nouns&oldid=1068799161"