Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/CFI for celestial objects

< Wiktionary:Votes

CFI for celestial objects edit

Background: There are no standards for celestial objects, leading to the existence of entries like HD 188753 (of which thousands more could potentially be made). Suggestions to fix this date back to at least 2007, but have never achieved consensus.

Proposed text (to be placed at the bottom of WT:CFI#Names):

Celestial objects

The following names of celestial objects shall be included if they fulfill attestation requirements:[1]

  • Constellations and asterisms
  • Proper names of stars, galaxies, quasars, nebulae, and black holes
  • Proper names of planets, minor planets, and moons (excluding associated numbers)
  • Clouds, belts, clusters, voids, and other named regions of space
  • Meteor showers

All systematic names of celestial objects, as well as celestial objects not listed above (including comets and manmade objects in space) shall be included if they have three citations of figurative use that fulfill attestation requirements, in the same manner as place names above. Geographic features on celestial objects are covered by the policy on place names.

The figurative use requirement for celestial objects not listed above does not apply to limited documentation languages. All names of celestial objects in these languages shall be included if they fulfill attestation requirements.

References:

  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/CFI for celestial objects


Rationale:

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support edit

  1.   Support as creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. On the whole, our CFI for place names, celestial objects, scientific phenomena, medical conditions, etc. should be more restrictive. Because this vote takes us one step closer to that, I support it. The other categories can be addressed in subsequent votes. Imetsia (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support, there is always some astronomical database waiting for your visit out there... It does not have to be Wiktionary. ॥ ☼ সূর্যমান ☽ ॥ 20:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support. Ultimateria (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support. Seems reasonable. — Dentonius 20:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 07:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 12:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --DannyS712 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support -⸘- inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 23:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose I know this is a whole new part of Wiktionary's rules, so I want to help it get off to the right start. An object is "a thing that has physical existence". A void is "an extended region of space containing no galaxies". The word 'object' does not include 'void'. "Outer space, or just space, is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including Earth."[1] Humans are not looking up at a "void object", but rather we are looking up through a void at objects. Alternative titles beside 'celestial objects' could include 'celestial terminology', 'celestial phenomena' or something similar. This is the first time I have voted against something so I am afraid of the backlash- my opinion stands as is and I do not plan to participate in any further discussion. Forgive me if my understanding of 'object' or 'void' is not scientifically valid. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose This would create far more permissive criteria for the names of celestial objects than are applied to names of other sorts of specific entities. I fail to see how this helps readers. e.g. why should we have an entry for Einstein Cross but not Albert Einstein, Einstein on the Beach, Albert Einstein Medal, Baby Einstein, Einstein Bros. Bagels, etc.? I raised this question on the talk page before voting started, but haven't received any responses - I'm genuinely interested to understand the rationale for special-casing this class of named entities. Colin M (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin M: Actually, the criteria are already vastly more permissive. This vote creates far more restrictive criteria than previously existed. It doesn't really have much bearing on our general philosophical approach of avoiding content that is purely encyclopaedic; I didn't respond to you there, because it seemed that you wanted to raise much broader issues that have little to do with this vote in particular, and the Beer parlour would be the best venue for that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain: I have no interest in this particular topic. DonnanZ (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • I do not get a vote here, I understand this. It's just some advice against rule creep. (over-legalisation) normal Notability guidelines should be enough to decide what should stay and what goes. If a named object is notable, it gets entries in about each and every language, which is usually many entries. If it does not even deserve an article on ranked-4-wikipedia, what good is it to search up the named object on WT? Especially when many celestial objects are just given serial numbers.

How about thinking from another angle. Obiter dictum. Should the entry Shakespeare meet RFI for Wiktionary? 119.56.98.200 06:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Wikipedia; we don't have notability guidelines. Your suggestion of just copying the inclusion criteria of an arbitrary subset of Wikipedias seems like a recipe for disaster. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
does RfI count as a form of a inclusion guideline? Then, do we have a guideline that says which Proper Nouns, which are uniquely-named objects, are important enough to be listed in the dictionary? Like, we generally can agree that named Proper nouns like England, English, France are important enough. Do you see the difference between noteworthy and unnoticed?
This is not going to be an issue that only will affect celestial objects. Proper nouns have to be carefully considered if they deserve to be listed. This is compared to common nouns.119.56.103.124 15:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Passes 17–2–1. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/CFI_for_celestial_objects&oldid=62417576"