Talk:Joan of Arc

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFD discussion: January–April 2022[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

As WT:CFI ever so clearly says: "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia." — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Compare Talk:George VI, which was deleted) — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surjection Except that we have Category:en:Individuals which are exceptions to this rule. Joan of Arc has lexical significance because of its interesting and complicated etymology; her original name was Jehanne and not anything remotely related to "Joan of Arc". Her real English name would logically be something like "Joan Darc" or just "Joan", but that's not how it turned out, in a unique turn of events due to centuries of apparent misinterpretation. George VI is not remotely comparable. The formula there is "King's name + roman numeral". The formula here is not so predictable. Keep. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most terms in Category:en:Individuals are not entries about individuals but about terms named after individuals. All of the latter in my view should go unless they have idiomatic senses otherwise documented, regardless of how historically important the individual was (or in rare cases is). The etymology argument could be plausible for something like Buddha or Genghis Khan, but in my view not here, where the etymological discussion should belong on the Wikipedia entry. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what about French Jeanne d’Arc, and Joan-of-Arcian?
But there's a punchline here, Lexico thinks it's includable, but they don't have Wiktionary's CFI. DonnanZ (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surjection: There's a lot of things that belong on Wikipedia and also here and we shouldn't see things exclusively either way. Compare ham radio, which has an entire article about its etymology on Wikipedia. For Joan of Arc it is long, but just simple enough that it can be included as a paragraph in a single etymology section. Genghis Khan is an incredibly similar entry to this one, with the etymology only shorter. In my view, an individual's name or nickname (keep in mind Joan of Arc is essentially the historical figure's nickname, again the real name was Jehanne) becomes lexical in its own right where it does not follow a particular formula wherein they are easily discernible from each other; for example, I'd be against Christopher Columbus (a person with the given name Christopher and the last name Columbus) or George IV (first name + number to represent generation). Try and parse Joan of Arc now. "A person named Joan from a place called Arc". Oh wait, Arc doesn't actually exist. So it therefore passed my test of lexicality. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joan-of-Arcian is completely fine. The French entry is not if the English entry isn't either.
The whole of (something) to justify keeping an entry lends itself to a very slippery slope, because that is standard for many historical figures, and probably part of the reason besides this very mistranslation, which to me is an etymological detail and not by itself a sufficient reason to keep an entry that would otherwise probably have never been created. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surjection: Clearly people cared about this entry's lexical significance (which is why I actually have hope for this RFD passing). For one, this entry was bombed with translations by several users other than myself. Just look at that box! Also, 46 page views in the past 30 days alone. Clearly someone cares, and this entry may very well have been created eventually if I had not done it myself. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those translations are not entry-worthy because they are simple transcriptions of the French name (even if some of the European languages, such as Italian, have transcribed the name in a more "native" way). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except I see them as entry-worthy (if I am understanding the translations correctly), for the same reason I see this English one as entry-worthy. I believe my arguments are sufficient. "The etymology ain't unique enough" doesn't fly, because it actually is pretty unique after all. "an etymological detail" Well good. Etymology is all about detail. Bring 'em all! PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PseudoSkull vacay: I am impartial to the existence of this article, I just wanted to say that you shouldn't take me adding translation as an expression of any kind of opinion. I have also added translations to articles that I would have voted to delete if an RFD was set up. Apart from you, me and Surjection, only one person has added translations to this article (User:DPUH) and they have seemingly just copied Wikipedia titles, some of which appear to be unattested. Fytcha (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Surjection WT:CFI also says (pretty explicitly also): "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." In other words, if it weren't for the first thing you listed, this line allows for exceptions that do not include both given names, family names, etc. formulaically.
I think "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places." is both an untrue statement in the context of Wiktionary as it stands today and an incorrect statement about words. Words for places are words (and Millinocket couldn't exist if we followed this to the letter). Words for people are words. Even some terms for individuals are words (Genghis Khan couldn't exist if we followed this to the letter). I think this sentence in CFI should be reformed (or perhaps more detail on exceptions to this rule on names for individuals should be provided below). I disagree with your view that terms for individuals don't belong; I think they do belong, as long as they are rare exceptions that don't follow a common formula. Joan of Arc applies to that, so in my view it counts. PseudoSkull vacay (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a generic sense could be added, like for Attila the Hun. You can google "the Joan of Arc of" and find evidence. General Vicinity (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Used figuratively. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency unless all such entries are deleted. The figurative sense is not a strong argument, it could apply to infinitely many such people for whatever quality. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 04:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the figurative definition added by WordyAndNerdy. No strong opinion on the "literal" definition (not exactly an &lit because this can not be parsed from the words alone. We could move the encyclopedic description to the etymology, as with Benedict Arnold, or we could move the figurative sense from its current incorrect "Proper noun" header to a separate "Noun" header, like Attila the Hun. bd2412 T 08:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on the biographical definition either. But I'm leaning towards keep for a few reasons. 1) The translations and derived terms mostly refer to the historical Joan of Arc rather any figurative "Joan of Arc." 2) The origin of the figurative sense would otherwise be explained under "etymology." Many readers are likely to skim past that section given it kinda wanders into the weeds (as a good etymology section should!) concerning the evidence for Joan of Arc's actual name. The "literal" definition makes it more readily apparent that the figurative sense originated as a reference to a historical figure. 3) The existing biographical definition is concise and to-the-point. If that information got offloaded onto "etymology," it might invite something longer and more encyclopedia-y. (Although I'd suggest adding a bit about Joan of Arc stating she was called to war by a divine voice, since that seems to be a common theme in figurative uses.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the figurative use, which normally I would look for as evidence of a lexicalized term, except at least two (maybe all three) of the quotations are literal references to the historic person, and the rules are quite clear on this, that first plus last name is encyclopedic. DAVilla 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the figurative sense. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with those who say that this word is used figuratively and also with the non-SOP argument (as there’s no place called Arc). I’m fairly indifferent as to whether the literal sense should be included but if it is then the figurative sense should be too, or at least the figurative sense should be given and a brief reference to the literal sense should appear in the etymology. This reminds me of the Sam Spade debate where I also voted keep, though that entry could be improved as the definition is literal and the examples figurative. We need a clear policy on things like this that should be applied in all cases. Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fig. sense. The cites currently there are not great. But if you look for "a real Joan of Arc" or "some Joan of Arc" in Google Books you can find good examples of the fig. sense. Delete the non-fig. sense. So what if her name has a unusual etymology: that's still just the etymology of a person's name, doesn't make them a lexical item. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Full keeps: PseudoSkull, WordyAndNerdy, Svārtava; delete non-figurative sense: SURJECTION, Vox Sciurorum, DAVilla, Sonofcawdrey, presumably dictátor·mundꟾ even though there was no vote from him before closure. I see no 2/3-consensus for deleting the non-figurative sense. Please show me where I am wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the substance, the invocation of "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia" is incorrect: this sentence is to limit encyclopedic descriptions. The sentence should better be removed from CFI to prevent this kind of confusion, but this may be hard to do since there are enough people who would want to see all senses for individuals removed and they may prevent the removal for that reason. The quoted sentence cannot be interpreted as excluding all person senses since that would also mean removal of all specific place senses ("not about people or places"), so London could not say "The capital city of the United Kingdom; capital city of England." And we have fairly many senses for specific individuals in Category:en:Individuals, just do a random check there, and check Robin Hood to give one instance and we even have some nicknames, e.g. Woz. As for myself, I obvious vote late keep on the literal sense of Joan of Arc. The issue of including particular individuals was controversial and there may be no consensus in either direction; a past discussion is at Talk:Xenocrates, and a poll is at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2010/December#Poll: Including individual people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say RFDs need 2/3 for. They only need "consensus", and the consensus here is clearly for deleting the non-figurative sense, even if slightly. Start a new RFD if you want to undelete it instead of gaming the system. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our tradition is to treat 2/3 as consensus and the only formal statutory evidence in that direction is Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes, which admittedly applies to policy votes. The above is not consensus by any detectable standard. I am not gaming the system. Those who want to delete senses for individual people need to show consensus, which according to the best evidence is 2/3. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/August#Consensus_threshold_in_RFD_discussions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To other readers, see my comments at the link discussion above. At least for this one in particular, it should really have remained deleted. AG202 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it remain deleted? On vote counts, there was no consensus; on strength of argument, the nomination rationale was blatant malargument. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone on BP is telling you how you are wrong. This is not a war you will be able to win with edit warring. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 04:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that no one posted any evidence of our common practice, whereas I posted Talk:less-than-stellar as an example. And Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/RFD voting policies makes it clear there is no consensus for arbitrary admin RFD closures either since 6 out of 13 in option 2 supported the fixed threshold of 2/3. From what I can tell, there was an attempted sneaky revolution to change the RFD practice without obtaining consensus for that. Does anyone really recognize 4:3 in favor of deletion that was above at time of closure as consensus? Given lack of consensus for any RFD practice, I do not know where to go from here. I maintain that arbitrary admin overrides of lack of consensus with zero override rationale are bad and should be avoided. I do not recognize the above as consensual RFD closure for the purpose of any future discussion or to serve as a precedent, but obviously do not intend to edit-war here with multiple editors who have decided to push their way against our previous practices. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_of_Arc&oldid=69238263"