Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Pauli exclusion principle. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Pauli exclusion principle, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Pauli exclusion principle in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Pauli exclusion principle you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Pauli exclusion principle will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Pauli exclusion principle, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments13 people in discussion
A tentative RFD. It's inherently encyclopaedic, but a good entry. I don't know whether or not it's in Wiktionary's purview (if we decide to delete it, though, we should soft-redirect to WP). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds03:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is at least brief. It is a good tes case IMO. We could put in trreqs for the 30-40 top languages and see:
The WP article exists in numerous languages. A quick skim revealed that the major Western languages call it the "Pauli Principle" or the "Pauli Principle". Choor monster (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The same is true of the title of any novel, song, many newspaper stories, and proper nouns generally. It seems to me the question is why we should keep some classes and exclude others.
DCDuring, I'd imagine you don't see it that way, but your comments seem to be off topic griping about the general state of Wiktionary and nothing to do with this entry. May I suggest this sort of debate should not be on this page but on WT:BP as it's policy discussion not discussion of this entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, what about the other side: what reason is there to keep this? It is clearly encyclopedic by nature (a proper noun, not a noun), and it is also a simple sum of parts like said above. There are millions of phrases like that (=almost every article in Wikipedia), why keep this one? Dakdada (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
AFAIK we have no applicable principle to apply to justify keeping or deleting the entry, ever since the sole previously applicable principle (reL names of specific entities) was voted out, making every such RfD an opportunity for debate on whimsical criteria or without any principles at all except our slogan, which is contradicted by our actual practice. The closest analogy is the title of literary works, which we do not keep, though "their meaning is not deducible from their content".
The sole stated reason to keep would apply to all proper nouns. The entry is encyclopedic. It might be OK as a translation target, though that rationale could also be deemed to apply to all proper nouns. In addition we don't have evidence that there is any translation that is anything other than an SoP translation of the English (or whatever the original language of coinage was) component terms.
Our actual practice seems to be to keep certain classes of proper nouns without careful regard to any principles. So, is the class of uniquely named scientific, professional, occupational, and practical laws, principles, theorems etc one that we want to keep?
That it is associated with the name of a person is immaterial to my point. If it were named the quantum exclusion principle it would be the same thing, it would still be a proper noun designating a specific entity, very like the titles of literary works, such as both Twelfth Night and Aesop's Fables. DCDuringTALK21:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Proper noun: that is not so clear. Some of the items listed by me below are ranked in the mainspace as nouns. Furthermore, the terms are not capitalized as proper nouns--that would have to be "Pauli Exclusion Principle" with capital E and capital P. Finally, names of abstract objects are usually not considered proper nouns, including names of numbers (AKA number words); if laws and principles are considered abstract objects, then their names are not considered proper nouns. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Delete without leaving a soft link to Wikipedia. Otherwise we will have to create an entry for every Wikipedia article. The only way we can keep such things is if we demonstrate that they developed a broader meaning, or are used figuratively, or in any way that does not actually refer to the principal itself. For example, if we can cite something similar to the following: Buses exhibit the Pauli exclusion principle, as two people can't sit in the same seat. --WikiTiki8920:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Re: "Otherwise we will have to create an entry for every Wikipedia article.": That is demonstrably incorrect: many Wikipedia articles have sum-of-parts titles, such as W:Government of the United Kingdom, and these get excluded as being sum-of-parts. Furthermore, the community may decide to keep names of laws and principles while excluding multi-word names of literary works. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Dan Polansky's argument above. We've dozens of these entries, and a quick glance through the first handful does not show any other usage other than the scientific definition. No valid reason to delete. Not sum of parts as meaningless without prior knowledge.--Dmol (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
@Darkdadaah well our criteria for inclusion, it seems to meet them. "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." And it's definitely attested, so it's both attested and idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
