Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Appendix talk:Romance of the Three Kingdoms. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Appendix talk:Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Appendix talk:Romance of the Three Kingdoms in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Appendix talk:Romance of the Three Kingdoms you have here. The definition of the word Appendix talk:Romance of the Three Kingdoms will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofAppendix talk:Romance of the Three Kingdoms, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion
A-cai (talk • contribs) is a huge fan of this novel (so am I). As a result, he's created entries for the names of various generals over the years in this dictionary. According to this vote, such entries should not exist. Here are some examples 虞翻, 王朗, 严舆, 嚴白虎, 孙权, 陈横 and 于糜, just to name a few. I suggest deletion of all the entries that satisfy this criteria. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C21:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we need a consensus here, such a consensus was achieved in the vote. However it should be 'this criterion' not 'this criteria' but I've even seen policitians make this mistake on the news, so hey. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure where this should be debated, but I'll put some preliminary thoughts here, since my entries were the ones that were singled out. As some of you may know, I have been working on a bi-lingual translation of Romance of the Three Kingdoms for Wikisource. I hyperlink each word or phrase (including names) to a Wiktionary entry, so that a student of the language can know how the sentences should be broken up. Proper nouns are not always easy to spot in the text. Here's an example from the title of Chapter 14: 孫伯符大戰嚴白虎. My feeling is that it is helpful to students of the language to point out that 孫伯符 and 嚴白虎 are proper names in this sentence, and not necessarily the most common versions of these names at that. For example, 孫伯符 is more popularly known as 孫策. The fact that each of these entries has an entry on Wikipedia is not a good argument in my mind. Most nouns have Wikipedia articles. This very subject has been debated in the past, and the decision was to keep proper nouns, provided that they appear in a significant literary work. (The debate took place several years ago. I don't remember the exact date). -- A-cai20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sure, that's fair. I'll do all the work, and all of you can vote on whether you like it or not. Thanks for your support. -- A-cai20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
No because Jamesjiao started a debate on this, in my opinion to cover his back in case someone disagrees with him. But I'd rather he just have deleted them outright. FWIW in reply to A-Cai for readers who don't read the Latin alphabet George Washington and Adam Smith might be 'useful' but surely that's not a reason to include them. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
If I understood you correctly, you just said that usefulness is not a valid reason for including something. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a word is useful, and if it doesn't hurt anything, why would you want to delete it? What's happened to Wiktionary? -- A-cai21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
On the one hand the vote mentioned above would disallow some of these names in the Main namespace; this does not mean that they could not appear in the Appendix namespace, particularly as some of the individuals appear to be characters in the novel with possibly no historical person atached to them. However, not all of the names are disallowed by the aforementioned vote. For example, 嚴白虎 is not disallowed, as it includes no given name nor diminutive; rather, it includes a descriptive nickname and family name. The vote did not consider this possibility, and thus does not disallow it. --EncycloPetey22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
I understand your argument, A-Cai. However, I see this as an opportunity to actually improve the Wikipedia articles, rather than dumping the names in a dictionary. The fact that they are not easy to spot in a text is not a valid reason why the names should be included in a dictionary. If they can't be spotted in the first place, how would a dictionary be of any help here? Besides, we are talking about a subset of proper nouns, not just proper nouns in general. These are names of individuals, some real, some ficitional, that exist in a work of literature. The name of an individual, with no meanings other than being, well, a name, is explicitly excluded from being included in this dictionary per vote. That being said, another reason I brought this discussion to your attention, is that, in the event that the decision of deleting these names does go through, this serves as a reminder to you not to create any further entries that fit this criterion (thanks MG). Jamesjiao → T ◊ C22:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your summary of what the vote does and does not allow is incorrect. The vote only concerned itself with names of real individuals in the form of a given name (or diminutive) in combination with a family name or surname. Names of fictional characters are covered under a different rule. Names not in the described form were not considered in the vote. Names that are simply names are actually allowed and encouraged as entries; there is no vote that disallows them. --EncycloPetey00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Wait, now I'm even more confused. EncyloPetey's description made it sound as though the ones I've included from the novel are allowed after all. His description makes it sound like a continuation of the policy decision that I remember from several years ago. That's why I've felt free to add hundreds of names from the novel ever since I began working on the translation back in 2007. Check out Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Chapter 1 to see how I've been doing it so far. -- A-cai02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
EP, read the whole CFI. It says terms about fictional people are subject to the fictional universes rule, and what does that say? "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." -- Liliana•02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Many if not most of the generals in this novel were actually real generals during the late Han dynasty. It makes no sense to keep some and delete others. I support the idea of a bilingual appendix dedicated to the names of the generals with links to their respective Wikipedia articles in both languages, as suggested by BD below. In all honesty, I am a fan of this novel and I also like to see the novel being represented more in Wikimedia as a whole. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
If somebody can provide me with a list of all the entries to be appendicized with respect to this discussion, I'll be glad to build the appendix. Cheers! bd2412T16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's useful as it does not introduce any new words but names of individuals (which is cleatly not dictionary material - we don't have a list of US presidents and Appendix:Harry Potter/Characters does not include a list of individual names).--115.27.203.9510:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
