| | :: The linguistic merit is the translations. The are in many cases not SOP. Yes, we don't have [[Gulf War]] but we have e.g. [[American Civil War]], which in your argumentation would also be SOP in the same way. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC) | | :: The linguistic merit is the translations. The are in many cases not SOP. Yes, we don't have [[Gulf War]] but we have e.g. [[American Civil War]], which in your argumentation would also be SOP in the same way. [[User:Matthias Buchmeier|Matthias Buchmeier]] ([[User talk:Matthias Buchmeier|talk]]) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
| | ::: I'd rather think the merit in American Civil War is that it is a proper name containing a totum pro parte. There could be other "American Civils Wars" which are SOP, but in this one "American" means '13 European colonies on the northern American continent' rather than 'pertaining to the continents of America'. [[User:Korn|Korn]] ([[User talk:Korn|talk]]) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC) | | ::: I'd rather think the merit in American Civil War is that it is a proper name containing a totum pro parte. There could be other "American Civils Wars" which are SOP, but in this one "American" means '13 European colonies on the northern American continent' rather than 'pertaining to the continents of America'. [[User:Korn|Korn]] ([[User talk:Korn|talk]]) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | ::::As pointed out in a previous debate, [[weather in London]] might have 'interesting' translations, but surely only interestingness of translations is not a reason to keep a whole entry. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
沒有留言:
張貼留言