Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-05/Names of specific entities

I think this has more of a chance of passing if "When there is clearly widespread knowledge of the name, citation is not required. This may include for instance the common names of major cities, large bodies of water, national landmarks, and world leaders." is omitted (so the proposal only aims to include "...if it has a widely understood meaning, as illustrated explicitly through metaphorical use to describe something else..."). Or, at least, I personally would be more likely to vote for it in that case.—msh210℠ 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The idea is to avoid citing every single name, an out clause like "clearly widespread use". That draws a deliberately ambiguous or subjective line because in the end it comes down to citations. I just don't think we should have to cite all the oceans, every Great Lake, and the seven seas. But certainly if there is another way to say that then do not hesitate, or if it really is questionable then certainly it will be removed. 72.177.113.91 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

How about "When there is a clearly widespread understanding of the name with such a meaning, citation is not required."? That wouls restrict to a smaller set of cases.—msh210℠ 16:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

So you rely on clearly widespread knowledge and want to pave the way for an article Thomas Jefferson to be created, right? And then, when I want to create a Tsar Kalojan or Vladimir Monomakh article here, it would swiftly be nominated for deletion, because it is not widely known to the anglophone world. If so, then I am fiercely opposed to the proposal. In this case clearly widespread would æqual to widespread for these or those parts of the world. If you permit famous rulers from multifarious nationalities to have their articles here, up to the last ruler of the Ahmadnagar Sultanate, only then would I support the proposal. Please respond, so that I can decide how to vote. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The vote has closed already, so don't bother voting, but the English word Thomas Jefferson would require use of the word in English, whereas the Whatever word Vladimir Monomakh would require use of the word in Whatever.​—msh210℠ 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This vote is welcome, as I agree that changes in CFI are needed. Here are my detailed comments.

• Specific entities: this title should be improved, the subject of the vote is not clear at all.
• A name should be included if it has a widely understood meaning, as illustrated explicitly through metaphorical use to describe something else.:
  • all words in all languages implies that all names which are (indisputably) words should be includable (if you disagree, a very important discussion should be opened). This should be clearly stated. In my opinion, this means that Hudson or London should be included because they are words. I also think that all town or village names should be includable (as words). But is Hudson River a word? This should be discussed.
  • notability (neither of the place or of the word) should not be a criterion
  • important metaphorical uses should be includable (but this is dangerous, because all proper nouns, including your name, may be used metaphorically, at least by your family). However, this should be a CFI only for phrases which would otherwise be excluded (e.g. Sears Tower or Thomas Jefferson).
  • therefore, I would change the sentence to: All proper nouns may be included when they can be considered as words. This includes all surnames, first names, nicknames belonging to the language (but not full names), all city/village names (and most place names), because such names are usually considered as words. Other proper nouns may be included only if they have a widely understood metaphorical use to describe something else.
• When there is clearly widespread knowledge of the name with such a meaning, citation is not required.: I would remove this sentence. It causes problems (see above discussion) and, if rules are clear, it is not needed (not any more than in the case of dog...)
• This may include for instance the common names of major cities, large bodies of water, national landmarks, and world leaders.: I would remove this sentence. It is very ambiguous. What does major cities mean? Anyway, such encyclopedic criteria should not be used. And world leaders should be excluded, except when they got nicknames which are words (e.g. Stalin), or when the name is used metaphorically, or for some other good (linguistic) reason.
• However, since Wiktionary is not meant to be a gazetteer or biographical reference, notability or importance are not the deciding factor.:
  • Notability or importance should not be factors at all (except for metaphoric uses of "non-word" names).
  • The fact that Wiktionary is not a gazetteer or biographical reference is more relevant to the contents of the page than to CFI.
• A lexical criterion of metaphoric use is consistent with Wiktionary's role as a literary reference.: I would have defined Wiktionary as a dictionary, not as a literary reference.

Lmaltier 08:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have to consider this in the context of other information in CFI. It follows the section "Given and family names" which helps to explain the section heading "Names of specific entities". (I've now corrected the title of the vote to reflect that.) The content you elaborate on is already covered in the preceding section, although that should probably be extended to place names with examples. This is not intended to cover all proper nouns, only those definitions that name specific people, places, and things. I've made some relevant changes to the text of the vote.

I would like to work in nicknames like "Stalin" but that has its own complications, first of all. Also I'm not as worried about it, being more generally agreed upon. We can hammer out the details later, once this more difficult question is settled. DAVilla 11:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think that Newport should be included, because it's a word, even if no metaphorical use can be found. The example in the proposal implies that a metaphorical use is required. Therefore, I disagree with the proposal. But I think that this proposal would be OK for names which are not words, such as World Trade Center or full person names (e.g. Winston Churchill). Lmaltier 08:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Both the current CFI as I understand them and the proposal as I understand it allow Newport as a word meaning "place name". The issue is whether to allow it as a word meaning "a particular city in Wales".—msh210℠ 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why definitions should be useless for place names (as a definition, place name is of very little help to readers). We don't define penguin as an animal. When several places share the same name, the meaning of the word is different. The French word Vienne has several very different meanings, all of them being place names. No encyclopedic information should be included, but a definition should always be included, and the meaning should be clear from this definition. Lmaltier 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You don't need me to validate your opinion, and I'm sure it's held by others (e.g., SB), but that's not the proposal up for a vote here (and I doubt it would pass right now if it were). My point in my response earlier was simply that your "Newport should be included, because it's a word, even if no metaphorical use can be found" is, the way I read it, the law of the land — but only in the sense of "a placename". Cf. ], which entry includes no definition other than "a surname" (although it has some etymology on the definition line, for some reason).—msh210℠ 17:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just as a comment: Chambers has adjectives for places (French, Antarctic) but not the proper nouns (France, Antarctica). Equinox ◑ 08:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm convinced that what I propose would pass (after some discussion...), because it's included in the objective of the project. For Vienne, the current page corresponds more or less to what I have in mind (the first two definitions are OK, the other two definitions should be expanded a little bit), except that I would add maps for localizing these places (it's often almost impossible to define a place without a map), and I would add etymology and other linguistic information. Lmaltier 20:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply