Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3

< Wiktionary:Votes

CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3 edit

  • Voting on: Removing the item "use in a well-known work, or" from WT:CFI, placing ", or" at the end of the item "clearly widespread use". Thus, no longer having full entries for words which are only used in one or two well-known works, and instead, using Template:only in or an equivalent to redirect users to an appendix of nonces words found in well-known works (handling cases where a string is a well-known nonce in one language and an attested word in another like this), while not limiting Template:only in to this use.
  • Rationale: Similar to that of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 2, but recognizing that some users think it is necessary to spell out that an appendix will be created. (The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.)

Support edit

  1.   Support. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC). As per Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 2#Rationale. A single occurrence of a would-be word in a work, even if a well-known one, is insufficient evidence of wordhood. I do not see why the presence in a well-known work makes something more of a word than the presence in a less-known work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. Nonces that don't get repeated are not worth repeating. DAVilla 04:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support. To the extent that this provision is actually used, we might as well just have an appendix of words coined by James Joyce. bd2412 T 13:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. An appendix of words coined in certain works or by certain authors is ok, but if they're not actually used by anyone (which is what 3 attestations are meant to show) then I don't think they belong in the main part of a dictionary. The status of a work may of course make the words in it more known, but it doesn't make them more used which is the crucial point here. —CodeCat 12:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose This, that and the other (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose It' "all words in all languages". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Štambuk (a) Should English dictionary-only words be placed into Wiktionary mainspace, as per "all words in all languages"? (b) Should words present only in Urban dictionary be placed into Wiktionary mainspace, as per "all words in all languages"? (Now, the attestation requirements prevent both.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Polansky All words attested in running text, excepting words in lexicographical works which should be included but with references. Single attestation should be enough. The only criteria should be that the intent was to convey meaning to the other party in conversation. The boundary between 1, 2 or 3 occurrences is arbitrary and pointless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Štambuk So would you accept a single attesting quotation to convey meaning even in works that are not well known as sufficient? Would you entirely drop the "in permanently recorded media" requirement of WT:ATTEST as well? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've argued against it many times. There is no such thing as permanent and Wiktionary's Citations namespace + editor verification should suffice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivan Štambuk From what you say, it seems you want haydayıcı, ünalgı and sınalgı included as Turkish words, as per Citations:haydayıcı, Citations:ünalgı, and Citations:sınalgı. A single occurrence in use to convey meaning in any corner of any internet discussion would lead to a Wiktionary entry. Re: "There is no such thing as permanent": The word "permanent" does not mean "absolutely everlasting"; there is a relativity built-in into the word "permanent". Put differently, "permanent" is not synonymous to "eternal". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no relativity, it does mean exactly that. The argument goes that paper and USENET are somehow "permanent" as opposed to digital storage. I hope that Google someday shuts down spam-infested Groups when it becomes unprofitable as well as its illegal endeavor Books, so that CFI must be changed and citations-gathering reorientated towards true language as written by the ignored 99%. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, "permanent residence" is not one that last forever; nor will "permanent makeup" last forever. Check dictionaries and their example sentences for "permanent". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note, I have some sympathy for being more inclusive about less well archived sources, but accepting single quotation from then as you propose is to accept one-off noise, not language that people actually use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are specific legal and idiomatic meanings. Normally permanent doesn't have an upper time boundary absent implied physical parameters of duration of the object that it is being applied to (like makeup which can last for how long? days?). I've skimmed definitions in 20+ English dictionaries installed in GoldenDict and none of them indicates any degree of temporal relativity.
    There difference between the one-off and three-off noise is arbitrary and irrelevant. If the word is used, it should be added. Especially so for words in well-known works which are likely to be looked up by lots of people. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these are unusual meanings of "permanent". My bet would be that at least half of all uses of "permanent" are in a sense that does not require that the thing lasts forever. Do an exercise, and try to find attesting quotations of the word "permanent" in the meaning of "lasting literally forever". Negatively specified things such as damage can be permanent in that sense, but permanent residence, permanent makeup, permanent employment, permanent camp, permanent war, permanent magnet, permanent income, permanent teeth, amd permanent settlement are some of the examples of what I am talking about; you will surely find many more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It cannot last literally forever since the object it's applied to cannot last forever. Almost all of the phrases that you mentioned have specific meanings and are not sums of parts, but in general permanent is synonymous and replaceable with adjectival counterparts of forever: perpetual, eternal, everlasting and so on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that if a word is coined by an author and used in a book without explanation, it does not necessarily convey any meaning at all. After all, how could an author intend to convey some meaning if they already know that nobody has ever heard of the word and has no way to figure out what it means? Imagine that someone had included "the food there was supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" in a book, and that was the only attestation of that word in literature ever (so assume Mary Poppins doesn't exist). Can such a word be understood to convey meaning? Or what about the countless nonce terms in Jabberwocky? —CodeCat 12:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is debatable in individual cases. Some of them indeed don't have any meaning and are made up for artistic effect, but most of the nonce words do. But even those that don't have any obvious and/or certain meanings usually have speculated meanings that are valuable for lexicographical purposes. We have speculated meanings for words in extinct languages, speculative etymologies - nonce words in modern languages should not be an exception. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain I think what we need before we can vote on this is an investigation into what kinds of words other than nonce words will be affected by this. Do we have a list of words that are only attested in a well-known work? --WikiTiki89 15:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that even nonce words would be affected by this. To my knowledge, thus far every nonce used in what's claimed to be a well-known work has been cited independently. I suppose that's the power of well-known works. DAVilla 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @DAVilla The following has only one cite in the mainspace: bababadalgharagh.... Ditto for contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality. The cites have to be in use; talking about the word does not count. Nonces are listed at Category:English nonce terms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I abstain because I am not confident that I have a full understanding of what this criterion implies and whether that is desirable. I am not familiar with the usual interpretation of this criterion and I think the vote initiator tells only one side of the story. Therefore I do not feel capable of making an informed decision. — Keφr 18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit


Agree with Decision edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI:_Removing_usage_in_a_well-known_work_3&oldid=75274871"