Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 10:11Z 

List of Latin phrases

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic list of dictdefs, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Has been transwikiied to Wiktionary. The previous debate is here, the number of "I like it!(tm)" votes was rather shocking. And my purge of idiomatic lists has indicated that consensus has changed, somewhat.

Do not vote keep because they are useful or because you like it. MER-C 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep most of the words and phrases. The ones that do not have notable history or use should be taken out, but for the most part I expect an encyclopedia to list major Latin phrases, with explanations about their past and present usage. Phrases that should absolutely be kept would be ones that now have common use; e.g. "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur," "ad hitlerum," "fiat lux," "requescat in pace," etc. In a point of semantics, I understand why it can be tiring to hear "it is useful" repeated ad nauseum. I think the reason an article is useful should be noted; while indeed this may be useful as a dictionary (and this earning it a place in Wiktionary), it is also extremely useful in helping people to understand the sociality of such phrases, how the meanings have evolved, where it would and would not be appropriate to use them, et al. As for "I like it," well, we all like the same thing: Wikipedia and its governing principles as an encyclopedia. Not only do I expect this article to stick around, I expect it to become the summum bonum encyclopedic Latin article. I like it. (edit conflict) V-Man737 09:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful list, and beyond dic. def. quality, as the phrases become linked to articles that themselves are way beyond dic. def. See the recent stub I created for Carthago delenda est. Many of these Latin phrases, because of their antiquity, have attracted to themselves their own little history and have become encyclopedic. A list pulling them together is great. NB - I don't doubt that there are many entries that could be removed from each of the lists, but that's no argument for deletion. --Dweller 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and set up a bot to maintain the links to the Wiktionary articles when people wikilink et al, et al. Percy Snoodle 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/move. keep the list, but only the the used (not cited) phrases. Move the rest in wikiquote. Cate |Talk 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to wiktionary --Boookabooo 10:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already there... MER-C 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very useful article while is arguably outside the scope of a classic encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is in my opinion far superior. the scope of Wikipedia is without any doubt wider than that of a classic encyclopaedia. this article is also arguably outside the scope of a classic dictionary. most references have a historical and interesting background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnbo (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Individual Latin phrases can have articles if they're notable and there is something interesting to say about them, like Carthago delenda est. Those articles can be grouped into Category:Latin phrases. This list is bloated and unencyclopedic and properly belongs at Wiktionary only. —Angr 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per V-Man and Dweller. Not a dicdef; highly encyclopedic, as many of these Latin phrases have a long history and are used regularly in conversation. This is emphatically not a WP:ILIKEIT argument; there's nothing in WP:LIST that applies directly to this page, nor should it come under WP:WINAD. Some of the entries could be removed, but that isn't a reason for deletion per WP policy. Walton monarchist89 11:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They're lists of dictdefs, which are equally bad. MER-C 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not arbitrary listcruft, and the phrases have some historical significance, e.g. "Veni vidi vici". Jonnbo's point that Wikipedia is not a classic encyclopaedia is true. This isn't an WP:ILIKEIT vote, more a reasoning as to why the article should be kept. It does have encyclopedic significance. --sunstar nettalk 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic list of phrases. With articles of a couple of Latin phrases, this list does have some encyclopedic value and its totally just not a dicdef like list. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia after all. Terence Ong 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although this is an interesting page it is not encyclopaedic - wiki or otherwise. It is a series of dictionary entries and as it has been transwikied to wiktionary it should now be deleted. Madmedea 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The explanation of literary or historical allusions is encyclopedia material, not dictionary material.  Many of these items link back to articles on their origins; and for those that don't yet, this is likely because no such information has yet been added to them, not because they are incapable of further expansion.  This list also serves valuable indexing and browsing functions. Please do not try to subvert consensus by pre-emptively declaring certain opinions to be invalid and ignorable. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but get out the weedwhacker. Many, many Latin phrases have made it into modern culture, particularly in law or politics.  Most of these phrases aren't, though.  Keep the notable ones (like E plurbius unum or quid pro quo), hack out the rest.  --UsaSatsui 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Because it's useful and I like it. But seriously, this seems like a very encyclopedic list, given the prevalence of various Latin terms in modern day english.  . V .  [Talk 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The head of the Latin article states: Although Latin is now widely considered to be a dead language, with very few fluent speakers and no native ones, it has exerted a major influence on many other languages that are still thriving and continues to see significant use in science, academia, and law.  The list of Latin phrases serves to substantiate that claim and illustrates just how much Latin is still in use.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above reasons. (some of the latin phrases have even been used in this discussion!) Mathmo Talk 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yeah, I did that on purpose. ;-) V-Man737 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Phrases like these are not the kind of thing you find in a dictionary (at least, not listed in this accessible way) and so removing from Wikipedia will make them harder to find. 84.172.189.127 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dweller & UsaSatsui. Amphytrite 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to note that these pages have either not been transwikied properly or have been deleted from Wiktionary. Either way, that has got to be fixed if one ever hopes to delete these from Wikipedia. Now as far as this nomination is concerned, I think most agree that the lists' content is something of sufficient interest to keep on some Wikimedia project. I'd rather have it here than on Wiktionary which doesn't really deal with such cumbersome entries. Pascal.Tesson 21:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the votes here have explained the reasons well, but to recap: the context here is encyclopedic and not, er, dictionaric. :/ JuJube 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep important phrases and expand on histories. Wiktionary can keep the rest. --Obstructio 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least until transwikied properly per Pascal.Tesson. If that event should happen, I might consider changing my vote to Delete. But again, as with Pascal.Tesson, this list is important enough so that at least some of these phrases should remain. Delta 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, it is a strong value and belongs to each encyclopedia -- Zentuk Bir Papyrus 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep. This definitely belongs in Wikipedia, far more than many other things.--Filll 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful to have a list, as distinct from separate (cross-referenced) entries;  information included that wouldn't normally appear in a dictionary. 128.250.204.118 03:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep These are phrases not words - "dicdef" hardly applies. It appears it's not on Wiktionary after all. Johnbod 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Get it out of article space. It is clearly not an encyclopedic article. It is also clearly useful. However, if nobody finds a place to transwiki it to properly, it should be deleted for failing WP:NOT. I don't think it makes much sense to move galleries of images (which are not encyclopedic articles, but very useful and even found in most paper encyclopedias) to the Commons and to keep this gallery of phrases here. Kusma (討論) 09:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is a big page. Please explain what, exactly, you feel this list is NOT.  --UsaSatsui 10:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this list "clearly not an encyclopedic article?" By the criteria on that guideline, it meets the three different purposes that lists (not necessarily articles, as it seems you have applied the criteria to) are to serve. It fulfills Information by providing concise history and usage of each term. It fulfills Navigation by providing links to the articles that have been sufficiently developed. It meets Development as it shows which of those articles are present, which have been considered, and which have not yet been considered. Take, for example, "Non silba, sed anthar; Deo vindice" ("Not for self, but for others; God will vindicate"), the slogan used by the Ku Klux Klan. Wow! They have their own slogan? And it's in Latin? That is very encyclopedic. Chock-full of history and culture, I'd bet. Eventually the phrase will gather enough information to get its own article, and the list will then be able to link to it and one will be able to read all about how the phrase came into use and what its cultural impact has been. No dictionary claims the capacity to do that; only Wikipedia can. V-Man737 11:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see all lists like this moved out of article space, into "List:" space if you wish. This list is a (rather good) list of dictionary definitions and Latin idioms including their use, which does fail WP:NOT. Portal:Latin might be a good place for info like this, or some appendix. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the list had only definitions, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. But that third column of encyclopedic information is what decidedly qualifies it as Wikipedia quality.
 * There are things under "List:"? I didn't know that. V-Man737 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no List: namespace, but sometimes I think we should have one. Kusma (討論) 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I suggest you pursue it if you're not already, and I do agree there's way too many lists (and as I pointed out, this one is waaaay too long). I don't agree, though, that just because you believe no list should be in Wikipedia is a good reason for deleting it. UsaSatsui 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "List:" space would be quite useful, and would help us avoid confusion between mainspace and "list-space" material leading to discussions like this (although I am finding it rather enlightening). V-Man737 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful and encyclopaedic. It is entirely reasonable for an encyclopaedia to have a list of Latin phrases. Are we running short of disk space? If not I see no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete since there's already one at Wikiquote which is far better organized. Just redirect it there. Nescio sed Scio 17:58 GMT -6, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)(Made account to cover IP address)
 * It's at Wikiquote? Mind finding a link for us? While you're at it, can we get a link for the Wiktionary entry as well? V-Man737 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote Version There's your Wikiquote version. Now this last one is just retarded. It was on the Article Page which the tran-wiki box will direct you to. If you don't know how to use that, here it is: Wiktionary VersionI had to pull lots of strings to be able to get them..Nescio sed Scio 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Fixed the links) Your string-pulling is much appreciated! That said, both of those articles/entries are quite inferior to the wealth of information that the Wikipedia list has (Note in particular the lack of KKK slogans ;-). V-Man737 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why this should be trans-wikied to Wikiquote which is a better catergory for these phrases. Doesn't make any sense for it to be in a dictionary. Also, this Wikipedia version has been trans-wikied to Wiktionary, has it not? Therefore it must be an exact copy here and at Wiktionary. I still believe Wikiquote is the right place for it. Alia iacta est. Nescio sed Scio 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't get Wiki-coding very much. Also, as I've been reading along this pointless argument, I noticed some of your key points V-man. I support in the fact that some singualy phrases should own their own spot on Wikipedia(e.g. your KKK motto), but a list of them should still just appear on Wikipedia. Famous phrases and key sayings are a must in Wikipedia(e.g. my alia iacta est). Nescio sed Scio 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thou sayest. V-Man737 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is much more to these phrases than a simple literal translation that can be afforded through a dictionary. The common use as well as historical significance ensures them a spot in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. We must understand that some of the important dimensions of these sayings would be ignored by a simple dictionary article. The current encyclopedia article should remain as a much more in depth source aiding in the understanding of all dimensions of these phrases.Ringleader1489 02:48, 6 Feb 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists of phrases with such a great historical importance should belong to Wikipedia IMHO. -- Emc² ( contact me ) 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's useful and I like it. (I was really tempted to put that in red.) Everyking 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/replace - there should definitely be an article on modern usage of latin phrases in academia/literature/public discourse, but the index of these phrases belongs in Wiktionary ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep First I'm going to say 'because its useful and because I like it' lol. The fact that when this page came up for deletion it before it got squashed flat begs the question why is it up again. Its an important resource and deserves its place on wikipedia as much as it does on wiktionary. I can see this page being very useful for a great many users searching the encyclopedia. If i went to find a phrase for the State motto of South Carolina I would search for it on wikipedia. Also I don't think that the WP:NOT argument holds much weight in this case. It seems to me that its for prevent individual words with a definition being added as an 'article'? Thats not the case on this page its a translation for an entire phrase many of which have historic and cultural importance. -- Shimirel (Talk) 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The list contains historical context, and serves as a navigation aid to other articles.  Reducing to a category would lose information.  Latin phrases are highly notable as a class, distinct from the notability of individual phrases.  The list permits browsing and comparison in a way that separate artices would not.  As for encyclopedic nature, the 14th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article on legal maxims that was not much more than a selection from this list in paragraph format.  Robert A.West (Talk) 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. And may I take this opportunity to express my great displeasure at seeing such a leading remark, "do not vote keep because they are useful or because you like it" (in bolded red, yet) heading the  page.  Even AfD nominations can respect encyclopedic neutrality.   — Athænara   ✉  07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apart from being useful and likeable (yes, I've read that essay), I think the list has encyclopedic merit as well; to elaborate: the introduction of Latin terms into the English language is a significant part of our coverage of the languages themselves. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopaedia, it's a collection of any information that could be useful, even if that means usurping data that is better suited for sister projects like Wiktionary. Plus, this has the entries arranged alphabetically, allowing for a far better navigation than that of Category:Latin phrases. Oh, and I like it. Plus, it's interesting. Also, we have other lists of stuff and this is better than some of them. If you delete this, you'll have to delete every list in Wikipedia! GassyGuy 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is full of notable quotes and provides information of historical, etymological and linguistical interest. It might be best to chop down the list a bit though.Comment I know this is nit-picking but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. At least that's what Jimbo Wales and the Five Pillars of Wikipedia sayYuanchosaan 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delendum regretfully. These are better placed at wikitionary or wikiquote.  I would support a merge of alea iacta est, Ecce homo, et cetera into a new "List of Latin phrases" article with reasonably tough standards of notability for inclusion, or a "Use of Latin in English" article explaining the history of using Lating quotes and phrases in English texts, but neither of those what we have before us.  What we have is a list of quotes and dict-defs which runs squarely afoul of WP:NOT.  Eluchil404 09:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.