Talk:Google
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Proper noun. We don't do names of specific entities. I don't challenge the capitalized common noun or verb. I have added an "etymology", which could probably use enhancement. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- We don't do names of companies, so deleted. However, according to newly amended WT:CFI, "there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities" such as a search engine. We do have Yahoo! by the way. DAVilla 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep both Google and Yahoo!, please. --Anatoli 01:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Eliminating the proper noun doesn't even eliminate the "Google" spelling of the common name, so a translation target remains. yahoo would remain also. As it is an onomatopoetic term, any form should provide an equivalent target for transliterations. None of the forms of "yahoo" have any translations now. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I will add Yahoo! translations later. What are you requesting to delete? Do you suggest to replace Proper noun with noun (proper noun->noun)? The verb should be lower case but I think we should keep Google capitalised but some translations have it as a noun, not a proper noun. Judging by interwikis, it's a popular entry and it must be a proper name in most other projects. I don't really mind if it's changed to a common noun (no strong opinion). --Anatoli 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- He's requesting deletion of the proper noun, the specific entity, that is, the definition of Google as a search engine. I'm sure the verb is fairly safe. DAVilla 06:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- With regard to We don't do names of specific entities. and We don't do names of companies: well, we don't do names at all, we do words, all words. Some names are words (e.g. platypus, Google, London, New York or Confucius) and deserve an entry, while some names are composed of several independent words (e.g. Winston Churchill) and don't deserve an entry. Lmaltier 07:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Lmaltier and change to noun, instead of proper noun, per google#Noun. TeleComNasSprVen 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- With regard to We don't do names of specific entities. and We don't do names of companies: well, we don't do names at all, we do words, all words. Some names are words (e.g. platypus, Google, London, New York or Confucius) and deserve an entry, while some names are composed of several independent words (e.g. Winston Churchill) and don't deserve an entry. Lmaltier 07:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Can someone explain to me wherefrom it follows that "we don't do names of companies"? CFI says "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." This text first appeared in CFI on 21 November 2007, formulated by DAVilla. (There was previously a slightly different text on company names, one that treated company names and brand names together.) When DAVilla, who edited CFI without a vote, says what we "don't do", that sounds as implausible as anything. Show me a Beer parlour discussion or a vote. --Dan Polansky 09:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Re "We don't do names of specific entities. ...DCDuring TALK 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)": Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities has passed on 18 June 2010: "Many names of specific entitites should be excluded while some should be included. There is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." --Dan Polansky 09:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have forgotten: Keep both the company of Google and its search engine, until someone proposes an acceptable principle under which these should be excluded; "we don't do names of specific entities" is inacceptable. --Dan Polansky 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
kept. -- Prince Kassad 19:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Translations are under the verb section, but many of the translations are nouns. DTLHS (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd even go as far as to say that all the translations are nouns. It seems that the verb section itself was missplaced, which I have now fixed. --WikiTiki89 02:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't want to assume that nobody had put in a verb in a language I didn't recognize, but if you're sure I'll close this. DTLHS (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)!
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Tagged but AFAICT not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- The third definition of "A service mark owned by Google Inc." Why would we want this? Is it a distinct sense to the company name? Anyway Don't they all pass WT:COMPANY? What exactly do we need to verify? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, detagged. The RFV was two years old and went nowhere. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Dinka. I have major doubts that this was ever mentioned in an attestable source in this obscure language. It might have its own Wikipedia article, but that doesn't count. I know LDL might apply, but I'm asking for some proof of even one attestable source. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- RFV failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)