Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2021-06/Disallowing terms referring to specific entities within fictional universes

< Wiktionary:Votes

Disallowing terms referring to specific entities within fictional universes edit

Voting on: Replacing the following text in WT:FICTION

Terms originating in fictional universes

with the following

Terms originating in, or which refer to specific entities within, fictional universes

To clarify, if a word is coined to refer to an entity (such as a creature or a piece of technology) specific to a fictional setting, and unrelated fictional stories use it to refer to a similar entity, it is not disallowed by this vote. Examples of allowed entries are orc (from the LOTR setting) and transmat.
My perspective is that a work that refers to a specific entity residing in a different work cannot be truly "independent" of that work, even if it doesn't explicitly mention the title of the work. However, that view is disputed.
For further rationale: See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/June#Fandom-made_terms. Also cf. RFV discussions on Gileadean and Category:en:Ships (fandom), as well as Charizard and Muppet, although the latter are, in my opinion, already covered by the old wording.__Gamren (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Schedule:

Support edit

  1.   Support wholeheartedly. The citation pages may remain; these terms may be relocated to the Appendix. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose. I cannot understate how devastating the adoption of this proposal would be for Wiktionary's coverage of fandom slang. I estimate it would drive a wrecking ball through at least 50% of the entries in Category:English fandom slang, most of which have been meticulously cited by numerous contributors, including myself. And why? Because of a pedantic insistence on clinging to the most literal interpretation of a vaguely-worded policy. Fandom does not exist in a vacuum. Most expressions of fandom involve enthusiasm for something. And that something is often a fictional entity. Enacting this policy would create weird and completely unnecessary gaps in Wiktionary's lexical coverage. It would mean that ships involving real celebrities (e.g. Larry Stylinson) would be fine, but even the most well-documented ships involving fictional characters (e.g. Johnlock) would not. It would mean Wiktionary couldn't document the slang of the immensely popular Star Wars or Pokémon fan communities, but could document the slang of the comparatively niche furry and omegaverse fandoms on the technicality that, while they do centre on fictive/imaginary concepts, they don't "originate in a fictional universe" (i.e., they don't derive from a specific work of fiction like Star Wars). This proposal would also likely do splash damage to the broader area of literary criticism. Gileadean isn't fandom slang. It's a literary criticism term. "Refers to a specific entity within a fictional universe" covers a lot more than the drafter of this proposal seems to realize. Holmesian (adj.), Achillean (with reference to the Iliad), Quixotean, and Scroogelike all refer to specific entities from fictional universes. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quixotean, Scroogelike and I suspect Holmesian originate from fictional characters, but do not refer to those characters. Achilles is a mythological figure. I believe all four would be exempt.__Gamren (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Of or pertaining to the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes"; "resembling or relating to Achilles, the hero of the Iliad"; "like Ebenezer Scrooge." Those definitions all directly reference specific fictional entities. I suppose one could split hairs about whether Achilles qualifies as a mythological figure or a character from a work of classical literature. Neither are mutually exclusive, but the top definition references the Iliad, a work of classical literature. In any case focusing solely on secondary examples is unhelpful and in no way addresses the devastating impact this proposal would have on Wiktionary's meticulously-cited coverage of fandom slang. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 03:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose per WordyAndNerdy. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose I can't get as excited about it as WordyAndNerdy (though nice to see 'em back) but I certainly agree with the points. Incidentally I wonder if this could overlap with BRAND rules: Pokémon might be a trademark (brand) but also a sufficiently popular piece of fiction to be referred to from outside. Just a thought. Why wasn't there a talk page on this first? Equinox ◑ 05:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Equinox There was, although not many people bothered to react to it. I even linked to it in the text above. In Scroogelike and Holmesian, I've moved reference to fictional characters from the definition to the etymology, to demonstrate how entries of this type aren't affected by this vote.__Gamren (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose, same as Equinox. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose Honestly FICTION is too strict as it is. 25 years after Charizard was introduced to the world, people are still writing about it, but whether it should be included here is hotly debated? Bullshit. DAVilla 07:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose per the above users. It's also worth noting that the case for this proposal is built on the fallacious assumption that WT:CFI requires uses of a word to be "truly independent". This is to be rejected; the strictures and stipulations of WT:CFI prescribe a reasonable degree of independence, not a complete lack of dependence. Which is just as well, as it's almost impossible for two uses of the same word to be truly independent. The chains of linguistic transmission tend to connect at some point. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose Coverage of attestable fandom slang is an asset to Wiktionary, whether the terms refer to specific entities in fictional universes or not. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose wait, what? — This unsigned comment was added by Victar (talk • contribs).
  10.   Oppose What counts as a work of fiction? Religious texts would arguably count, but WT has extensive coverage of them. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose What is the world coming to if the classic playground insult “You fat Jabba” is no longer understandable as a result of a Wiktionary search! Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose The Grid (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not eligible to vote (see WT:VP) — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, Surjection. Thank you for linking me to the voting documentation! The Grid (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose - unenforceable and only adds to the burden of enforcing the unenforceable. The phrasing would easily slippery-slope into certain senses in terms such as Sanskrit वज्र (vajra), Chinese 緊箍咒／紧箍咒 (jǐngūzhòu), English rabbit hole, etc. --Frigoris (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Oppose. I agree in principle with narrowing the field of fictional terms we can include. But if this proposal would target entries like Charizard and Muppet, as well as the others mentioned by WordyAndNerdy, I can't support it. Those entries seem helpful to include in a dictionary. Imetsia (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain, inclined to   Support. Also I don't see anything at Citations:Charizard that would make it worthy of inclusion. PUC – 14:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In principle, the idea that e.g. FemShep is not more inclusion-worthy than Shepard (“Commander Shepard”) appeals to me, but the opposers also raise good points. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FemShep/BroShep are fan nicknames. They were created by fans and are used primarily by fans. Fandom slang is a type of jargon and thus falls under Wiktionary's objective of documenting "all words in all languages." Whereas Shepard is simply the name of a character from a work of fiction. Without evidence of idiomatic usage, like Spock or Captain Kirk, it isn't inclusion-worthy. The key thing is that Commander Shepard is not referred to as "FemShep" or "BroShep" in the Mass Effect games or any official materials. It's an informal fan nickname the way the Big Apple is a nickname for NYC. There's a few examples that straddle the line. Voldy is actually used in the Harry Potter books, from what I remember. But for the most part ship names and fan nicknames for characters don't get used in the works of fiction they reference. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Abstain, for the same reasons as -sche above (note that I supported the original proposal before it was made into a vote) — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Abstain no supporters? was this vote set up to fail? – Jberkel 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Abstain I don't know how to vote here. I appreciate the FemShep entry. The main question to me is maintaining the legitimacy of the Wiktionary project. I don't work on Urban Dictionary.
    If I were going to vote on this question, I would try to collect information about the authoritative English dictionaries and determine what their policies are on these issues. The word Klingon has an entry in the Oxford dictionary, so there is clearly some way that 1960s Star Trek material can become a bona fide part of the heritage of the English language; removal of the Klingon entry from Wiktionary by any policy decided by us would undermine the legitimacy of the project.
    The question is: does FemShep undermine the legitimacy of Wiktionary by its inclusion, given that Oxford and Merriam Webster don't seem to cover Mass Effect material (yet)? Does it make Wiktionary like Urban Dictionary? I want to separate Wiktionary from Urban Dictionary by mimicking Oxford and MW, but at the same time go beyond Oxford and MW in cases where there are "three appropriate cites". So the true question to me is one of maintaining a sense of legitimacy of the project by comparing the policies of Wiktionary to those of the established dictionaries. What is Oxford's rationale for not having a FemShep entry? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably mostly corpus driven, and if FemShep doesn't show up with some regularity in their corpus, it won't be considered for inclusion. They will likely also analyze the search logs, so go to lexico.com and search for FemShep (right now it comes back suggesting femslash). – Jberkel 11:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Abstain: I.m not even remotely interested in the subject. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Fails 1–13–6. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2021-06/Disallowing_terms_referring_to_specific_entities_within_fictional_universes&oldid=63607125"