User talk:Tiddlywinks/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

(→‎Props: reply)
Line 79: Line 79:
:::Without seeing them for myself, I'll have to doubt that they're official "names". They might be what was officially written to describe them, but they don't look terribly like "names". (Even if they're perhaps labeled as "names" in the book, I'd still consider them dumb "names", or "name" a bad "name"...)
:::Without seeing them for myself, I'll have to doubt that they're official "names". They might be what was officially written to describe them, but they don't look terribly like "names". (Even if they're perhaps labeled as "names" in the book, I'd still consider them dumb "names", or "name" a bad "name"...)
:::In any case, "official" or not, I still do not admit that they're worth enough to include, especially not in the table like that where they're just annoying clutter. I ''could'' make it look better, or they could be thrown in elsewhere perhaps...but for now I'm sticking with: "they're not worth including". That is what I believe. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:::In any case, "official" or not, I still do not admit that they're worth enough to include, especially not in the table like that where they're just annoying clutter. I ''could'' make it look better, or they could be thrown in elsewhere perhaps...but for now I'm sticking with: "they're not worth including". That is what I believe. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
::::By the way, if it helps the column listing them was just headed '自然物', with nothing to say 'these are explicitly names' or 'these are explicitly descriptions'. On reflection, they certainly do seem to be just ordinary descriptions... [[User:Bluesun|Bluesun]] ([[User talk:Bluesun|talk]]) 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


== Move translations ==
== Move translations ==
1,356

edits