Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

My possible vote[edit]

According to how I understood the proposals, strictly as they are worded now (current revision), I would vote for "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution", because the page Arbok contains multiple languages and translations: it is not a list or table of terms and information about those terms; and a separate page for each entry is very unclear. --Daniel. 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearer now?​—msh210 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The new text "either one page per language for each entry, or one page all together with sections for different languages" is effectively comprised of two distinct proposals. For what is worth, the alternative "with a list or table of terms and information about those terms" displays a third and a fourth proposals. I believe this vote could be improved by (1) either making these four ideas de facto distinct proposals by adding them as votable options, (2) or creating relevant discussions, to see if anyone is interested in any of these four formats. --Daniel. 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
IMO the two, and the other two, are respectively similar enough that they can be lumped together, and most people will not mind voting for them as such (instead of of voting for "other"). Splitting it into four will make it much harder to gain consensus.​—msh210 (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The vote, as it is written now, is very immature. Please accept my analysis as a means to improve it. This vote is supposed to decide how to format, or not format, a group of pages. However, it lacks comparisons between the various formats, either as examples (from scratch or from already created pages) or as explanations of benefits. A voter currently has to rely on his or her imagination to properly express a decision. If either the first or the second options succeeds in being implemented, even then the risk of the results being far from one's assumption is high. The objective of formalizing criteria for formatting these pages cannot be fulfilled by this vote alone, that is likely to give birth to additional, redundant, votes. If, specifically, the idea is rejecting the alternative option (e.g., a person who happens to be very interested in avoiding lists or tables; or in avoiding one page per language, or "sections for different languages"), the premise is the same because the person will have to imagine what would be the results of the other option. In addition, there are multiple relevant issues not properly addressed by this vote, such as how to readably connect between words and their citations, and what to do with artistic languages that often are developed for fictional universes. The third option "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution", not only serves better the purpose of further discussing these subjects, but also does what the other options do: in essence, oppose each other without offering an objective solution to a recognizable problem. --Daniel. 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Do others agree with Daniel?​—msh210 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I see no need to create four options; having two disjunctive options (such that the option allows for a disjuction of conditions) is fine. Having four options would mean that another vote would need to be run that would confirm the winner of this vote. Also, the split entailed in the proposed two options focuses on the major distinction that was a point of contention: one page per universe vs one subpage per term as if the term were in the mainspace, regardless of the details of how the single page per universe would be formatted. --Dan Polansky 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:Snowclones[edit]

Would this vote also apply to Appendix:Snowclones, or just the fictional-universe ones? — lexicógrafo | háblame — 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The vote itself would apply only to fictional-universe appendices, though IMHO it's pretty natural that we would start taking the same approach for other, similar appendices. —RuakhTALK 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems, based on comments elsewhere, that my comment here may have been misinterpreted, so to clarify: I meant only that if we establish a certain format for fictional-universe appendices, it's likely IMHO that we'll end up repurposing that format for other appendices considered similar. —RuakhTALK 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And the mainspace?[edit]

It seems that the proposal implies that words from fictional universes should not be included in the mainspace, but it's not explicit. It should be explicit. I personally think that all words should be included in the mainspace.

Note that Odysseus is in the mainspace. The proposal seems to apply to modern fictional universes only (e.g. it seems to exclude the Iliad and the Odyssey, etc.). Or am I wrong? This point should be made explicit.

It's quite normal that words relating to a universe are always, or almost always, used in reference to this universe, just like words such as diphycercal are always used in the context of ichthyology. Why looking for occurences of Parseltongue not related to Harry Potter?

Actually, the only real issue is When does a word coined for a fictional universe become part of the language? I think that the answer is: when it becomes part of the culture of the language, i.e. when most (or a significant percent) of adults (or children) using this language know it. A word from Alice in Wonderland known by most people should be considered as part of the language, despite the fact that it comes from a fictional universe. This would make much more sense that the current policy, leading to exclude most words from fictional universes, even when they are well known, and to accept words such as contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality... Lmaltier 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not explicit in this proposal because it's already explicit in existing policy; see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Fictional universes. —RuakhTALK 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You are right, it's much clearer than I felt. Actually, my comments apply to the current policy, not to the proposal. But improving the policy first might make this proposal meaningless. Lmaltier 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Lmaltier: The placement of, for instance, Little Red Riding Hood in the main namespace goes against the policy but according to common practice. (the vote simply takes text from the policy) However, apparently, the vote "Disallowing certain appendices" is about formatting pages, not about choosing their criteria for inclusion. --Daniel. 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Does somebody dsagree with my comments above? Don't you think that changing current rules about these words would save much time by making this proposal useless? Lmaltier 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It might take more time than this proposal will. IMO, until it's done, let's do this one.​—msh210 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Notably, other Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, Wikiquote and Wikibooks, apparently always place information from fictional universes in their main namespaces. However, Wiktionary has different needs and practices:
I agree with your (Lmaltier's) proposal of placing fictional works in the main namespace when it becomes "part of the culture". That is why Parseltongue should be outside the main namespace if it is used only in Harry Potter, in news about Harry Potter and more context of Harry Potter. That is, it is not "part of the culture" as I understood it, because it is part of a single work!
On the other hand, if, hypothetically, Parseltongue is "the language of snakes" without context of Harry Potter, then it has became part of the language, coined but not limited from that work, and merits to be defined in the entry namespace. --Daniel. 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that Harry Potter, and some of the words created in this work, belong to the current culture of many (or most) English-speaking people (and other people as well), even if they are used only in this work? I think that such words belong to the mainspace. And, clearly (but some disagree), words created by an obscure writer in an obscure work, and not used elsewhere, should not be included, because they cannot be considered as belonging to the vocabulary of the language. The objective of CFI should be to define the precise limit, without violating the principle all words of all languages. Lmaltier 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It is difficult to transform into an objective policy the proposal of placing "Parseltongue" in the main namespace, but not providing the same privilege to obscure works, based on whether or not they "belong to the current culture". Should every spell of Harry Potter be in the main namespace? If not, which spells should? On the other hand, by having Appendix:Harry Potter/Killing Curse, Appendix:Harry Potter spells and Appendix:Harry Potter, you can find definitions for all unique words from Harry Potter together. --Daniel. 18:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I find that this attitude is discriminatory against recent works. There is no reason to accept Odysseus (also a word from a fictional universe) and not words known by as many (or more) persons. Fixing a limit is difficult but, if it is too difficult, I would prefer to accept all words from Harry Potter than to refuse all of them. After all, words from well-known works are accepted, and Harry potter is, very clearly, a well-known work. Lmaltier 19:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not remember expressing a personal opinion that is discriminatory against recent works. For what is worth, I expect the definition "son of Laertes; wisest Greek leader during the Trojan War, and resposible for the Trojan horse; king of Ithaca; hero of the Iliad and protagonist of the Odyssey" of Odysseus to be removed from the main namespace too.
As for your proposal of including all (or many) fictional terms based them being "part of the culture", Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant clearly attests a few definitions by including independent citations. Would independent citations like these be enough for any word to be defined in the main namespace? --Daniel. 20:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume that most people accept words from the Antiquity universe, but feel uneasy when it comes to recent works. Words such as centaur, siren, elf, merman or unicorn might also be considered as belonging to fictional universes, and nobody would like to exclude them if citations not referring to this universe are not found. Whatever a words means and wherever it comes from, it should be included if it can be considered as a word of the language. This is the basic rule here. Unfortunately, many other rules contradict this basic rule. Lmaltier 06:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Your examples "centaur", "siren", "elf", "merman" or "unicorn" all belong to more than three works that are (1) by different authors and (2) that do not comment or reference each other. Thus, they currently belong to our main namespace. --Daniel. 09:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Greek word for "siren" was mentioned first by Homer. We might argue that all other uses are in reference to Homer. I think nobody would want to remove it nonetheless, as it is a word used in the language. Lmaltier 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If possible, I prefer not to mix the concepts of coinage and reference, for the purposes of CFI. Sirens appear in various works that do not reference Homer directly, even if the word was coined by him. --Daniel. 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't you understand my point? The reason for including a word is not that it has been used by three authors or anything of the kind. The reason is that it is a word used in the language (see beginning of CFI). Attestation criteria are useful only when this fact is not obvious enough. Lmaltier 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your main points are: (1) it is unfair to promote words from ancient fiction by keeping them in the mainspace while leaving modern works such as Harry Potter in appendices; and, (2) fictional words belong to the language, so they merit to be in the main namespace, even if they only exist within the limited context of a fictional universe, like how there are words limited to scientific subjects and naturally kept in the main namespace. --Daniel. 09:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Except that some fictional words never enter the language at all, are used only in one obscure book of an obscure writer (an extreme example is a surname coined by the writer in this book), and should not be included, in my opinion, although some promote this inclusion, which is a very respectable opinion. Lmaltier 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Good. Now you know that I know your points. In my personal view, the idea of placing fictional words in the main namespace is not entirely devoid of merit, but I have two objections: fictional words are distracting and are many.
In the first place, attestation criteria are useful even for obvious words; the difference is that obvious words are much more easily attested. For example, the word "of" certainly meets the subjective criterion of being obviously part of the [English] language, but it displays multiple definitions (and additional linguistic information) that would benefit from at least three citations each, as described by CFI.
Furthermore, for a fictional word, there is a fictional context. That is, for example, characters of Pokémon know something called "Potion" (defined as "a medicine to cure Pokémon"); nonetheless, real people also know Potions from the anime and video games, and possibly write about them. That definition of the word "Potion" may be naturally found through books, web sites and other media, in the form of, at least: (1) technical information about how Potions work in games; (2) fictional characters that happen to own a Potion, talking about it; (3) commentaries, reviews and criticism about Potions as plot devices.
If these media serve as attestation for the main namespace, then "Potion" would appear at the entry Potion. However, there are at least six definitions for that word from Pokémon, as you can see at the current Appendix:Pokémon/Potion. These definitions are accompanied by an etymology, related terms and translations (not to mention citations for each definition), which expand the height of any entry; in this case, they are prone to unexpectedly distract people who are searching for generic definitions of "Potion" but may not be interested in Pokémon.
Actually, the word "Potion" with a capital P apparently would be a brand new entry, without sharing a page with any other word; however, other words, such as "mutant", "electricity" and "World War III" are likely to appear differently in various contexts, particularly fictional ones. The entry World War III looks good, being defined as "A hypothetical world war following World War II." It does not need one definition for each fictional work that depicts it.
In my opinion, as a related example, "zombie" may be in the main namespace, regardless of it being fictional, but because it is generic; that is, it has a common definition (roughly "rotten, slow, unintelligent and undead person") that appears in multiple works that don't refer to each other. That entry may even define and attest generic varieties of zombies (like "magically reanimated corpse", "corpse reanimated by a virus or infection" and "dead person who ressurected into his rotten body to fulfill an obsession"). However, there are multiple works that include zombies in different manners. If, by chance, we want an appendix for the Resident Evil series, then we might define "zombie" for it, and link that word to "T-Virus", "serum" and "hyper zombie", that are relevant to the creature in that specific fictional context. By extension, we may want appendices for Marvel Comics, One Piece, Buffy, Doom, The Sims, Final Fantasy, Harry Potter, GURPS, Fallout and World of Warcraft, to define zombies in their contexts too.
It is preferable to have dozens of appendices with definitions for zombies (either as parts of lists or as individual pages), than having one entry zombie that elaborates how they appear at each context.
In short, my concern is for legibility. In my opinion, the main namespace can continue to be a place for generic definitions (that is, the ones that appear in multiple works) while the appendices [or a separate namespace] can hold the individual definitions (that is, the ones that appear in only one work, in addition to works that mention it). --Daniel. 01:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Options[edit]

The options are currently named such:

  • One page per appendix, split as needed
  • One page per term

I think the following is what is meant and is more specific and clearer, to me anyway:

  • One appendix page for a whole set of terms, with no subpages, such as "Appendix:Star Wars"
  • One appendix subpage per term, such as "Appendix:Star Wars/protocol droid"

--Dan Polansky 07:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I realized that the text of the option merely refers to what it already says in the longer text above the option. Then I would like to see the text for each option repeated just below each option heading.

If short option headings are preferred, this would also IMHO be clearer:

  • One appendix page per a set of terms
  • One appendix subpage per term

--Dan Polansky 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would the page Muggle be further splitted into five pages according to your option of "One appendix subpage per term"? --Daniel. 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The option "One appendix subpage per term" does not specify whether Appendix:Harry Potter/Muggle should be further split. Feel free to propose, here on the talk page, option headings that you find least ambiguous. In any case, it would be hard to fit all the clauses and details into option headings, so each option heading should better be followed with a fuller statement of what the option entails. In any case, I leave it to msh210 to decide which of my proposals to accept and work into the page of the vote. --Dan Polansky 11:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll make a change to the vote page now, but this is a wiki and anyone could do the same.​—msh210 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That's right; I could edit the vote myself. But I often prefer to leave it to the author of the vote to edit the vote, although sometimes I violate this personal policy. I like seeing the author of the vote as the owner of the document, and myself as a feedback provider. I have used this method with the second vote on geographic names, and it worked well. Leaving it to the author of the vote to make the change makes it easier for the author to reject a proposal; it is psychologically a bit harder to revert an edit than to avoid including a proposal. It seems to contribute to the stability of a text when some people are the owners and other people mere proposers. --Dan Polansky 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. What do you think of the current version?​—msh210 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The current version is definitely an improvement ("One page per universe, split as needed, as described above", "One page per term, as described above"). Nevertheless, I would like to see the full texts of the options below the option headings, to help my poor eye scanning skills, or to help my short-term memory, or ... I don't really know; I would prefer to vote directly below the full text with which I agree by giving the vote. --Dan Polansky 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal in this revision. I have forgotten to remove the part "as described above" from the headings. --Dan Polansky 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Good AFAI'm concerned.​—msh210 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The first option is what the current allowment "appendices of words from that universe" means to me. DAVilla 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First option, its but-clause[edit]

The first option reads:

"An appendix for such terms (terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe) shall be one page per universe (or more if needed to split long lists into parts of lists), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms, but not a separate entry-like structure for each term."

I am not sure I understand how the last part, the one starting with "but not", is grammatically joined to the previous parts.

Does the but-clause ("but not a separate entry-like structure for each term") mean that the single page per universe should have no L2-heading "English" and no L3-heading "Noun"?

Could the but-clause be phrased as "but without a separate mainspace-entry-like heading structure for each term"?

Or what about this: "; no term on the pages per universe shall have a mainspace-entry-like heading structure such as a heading named 'English' with a subheading named 'Pronunciation' and another subheading named 'Noun'." --Dan Polansky 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm dense, but all your possible interpretations of the clause seem to mean the same thing to me. Can you clarify, please?​—msh210 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so your answer to my first question is yes, that is what it is intended to mean. It took me some time to realize that this is the intented meaning; I have succeeded only after I have recalled some of the formatting placed by Daniel Dot to the appendices, formatting in which one page contained many terms, each term formatted as if it were in the mainspace. It could be me who is dense; I am in any case a non-native English speaker.
Grammatically, I do not quite understand this: "An appendix for such terms ... shall be one page per universe (...), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms, but not a separate entry-like structure for each term." It seems like you are saying that "An appendix for such terms shall be ... not a separate entry-like structure for each term"; an appendix is not a structure; it has a structure. Maybe it would help if you would parse the sentence for me.
You seem to automatically read "entry" as "mainspace entry", but I do not, hence my proposed "mainspace-entry-like" rather than "entry-like".
The last proposal that I have made seems clearest to me. If all the proposals are equally clear to you, going with my last proposal could be preferable, as it does not harm your understanding but it helps my understanding. I mean this proposal: "; no term on the pages per universe shall have a mainspace-entry-like heading structure such as a heading named 'English' with a subheading named 'Pronunciation' and another subheading named 'Noun'." --Dan Polansky 07:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
"But" goes back on "with": An appendix shall be one page with {a list or table but not an entry structure}.
I'll make some changes; you or another can make further changes.​—msh210 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How to organize the lists[edit]

Here is one revision of Appendix:Na'vi, comprised of a list that includes multiple definitions per word, translations, pronunciations, parts of speech, context labels, glosses, anchors, alternative spellings, inflections, external links and references. Does anyone support that amount of information? Also, does anyone support how that [revision of] that page is formatted? --Daniel. 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I do (to answer both your questions at once), for the most part.​—msh210 (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where to place the citations[edit]

The page Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant currently contains three attested definitions. Does anyone support how their citations are placed and organized below them? --Daniel. 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Iff the second option in this vote passes.​—msh210 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The first option does not say anything about where citations should or shouldn't be placed; it only specifically requires the citations. Am I missing something? --Daniel. 19:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
We put citations for foo at [[citations:foo]], whether or not we have a mainspace entry for (indeed, whether or not we have any page on) foo.​—msh210 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the page Citations:mutant should contain the citations for all the meanings of "mutant", including the current:
  • Something which has mutated, which has one or more new characteristics from a mutation.
  • (informal) Someone or something that seems strange, abnormal, or bizarre.
  • Something which has undergone mutation.
  • (informal) Strange, abnormal, or bizarre.
  • (Marvel Comics, of a being) Born with the fictional X-gene, which causes superpowers and characterizes a subspecies or a separate species, such as the Homo sapiens superior of mutant humans.
  • (Marvel Comics) Of mutant people or creatures.
  • (Marvel Comics) A mutant person or creature.
However, the additional pages mutant and Appendix:Marvel Comics/mutant have the benefit of placing and organizing only the relevant citations, below the applicable definitions. I don't think that everyone would always want to see all the citations of "mutant", without the chance to select and promote the ones that clearly demonstrate usage of a word. --Daniel. 10:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The current system uses both options[edit]

Here are two relevant facts:

The vote "Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing certain appendices" currently provides and elaborates four options: "One page per universe, split as needed", "One page per term", "Some solution between those two extremes, or some other solution" and " Abstain". The two first ones seem to be directly opposing each other. The message apparently is: either you want a list or you want individual pages (or you want something else, or you abstain).

I personally feel that both the list and the individual pages are desirable and necessary; as an additional example, there is Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien for words coined by him, in addition to individual pages further detailing them. To make a list without entries, one conceivably has to cram all the information into little spaces that are distracting and reduce visual scannability; otherwise, there is the alternative of virtually not showing anything besides words and their definitions. In addition, a list without individual pages would result in deprecating or drastically reducing the usefulness of connection between words, such as the category Fictional alcoholic beverages, that presents fictional alcoholic beverages from various works. Entries without a list also would lack this valuable resource of findability: I believe there is no reason to place the words from a single universe separately, without that fundamental way to link them to each other.

The third option is currently the closest to my opinion and arguments. I would appreciate to know any reason to vote only for the first, or the second options. Otherwise, perhaps voters should be formally allowed to choose both options simultaneously. --Daniel. 13:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting mechanism[edit]

The voting mechanism should explicitly be stated in the vote, IMHO. One voting mechanism is the following one, from Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral:

"Voting mechanism: Approval voting, with the caveat that an option must have a supermajority (something like 70% or 66% of voters, though as usual this is left to the closer's discretion). Each voter can support both options, or support exactly one option (implicitly opposing the other), or oppose both options. Abstentions, as usual, do not count in either direction."

I do not know whether this is the intended voting mechanism for this multi-option vote. This is addressed above all to msh210, whom I deem the owner or responsible person for the vote. --Dan Polansky 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "Approval voting, with the caveat that an option must have a supermajority (something like 70% or 66% of voters, though as usual this is left to the closer's discretion). Each voter can support any (one, two, or all) of the three options. Abstentions, as usual, do not count in either direction."? (I've just moved the vote back a few days to allow for discussion of this IMO important issue.)​—msh210 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm, when I think about it, the three options seem to be formulated as exclusive ones. If they are not meant to be exclusive, then it could be better to have only two options, with the third option replaced with "Oppose both", on the model of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number vs. numeral.
Another twist would be to go for a very simple vote design, with only the option one that creates a constraint on the formatting, and makes it very clear that it excludes the option two; that would be it. That could be formulated like this:

"An appendix for such terms (terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe) shall be one page per universe (or more if needed to split long lists into parts of lists), with a list or table of terms and information about those terms; no term on such a page shall have a mainspace-entry-like structure; no entry of such an appendix or a set of appendices shall have a separate subpage dedicated to the entry, especially a subpage that mimics a mainspace entry."

--Dan Polansky 16:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've now added my own wording, just above. Tweak prn.​—msh210 (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added this: "; each option that does not get a vote from the voter is considered opposed by him", which corresponds to Ruakh's "(implicitly opposing the other)" in the previous formulation. Feel absolutely free to rewrite it, remove it, or whatever; it is your vote, and your ultimate responsibility for its wording and design; or so my stance anyway. --Dan Polansky 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
One more note: you seem to take it for grated that the reader has a clear idea of "approval voting"[1]. But the vote does not define what "approval voting" means; the mechanism of standard "approval voting" is not described anywhere in Wiktionary. It is only described in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia's approval voting is inapplicable, as, per WP, "The winner is the candidate receiving the most votes", and there are no opposing votes, only approving ones. Thus, it is by no means clear that "Each option that does not get a vote from the voter is counted as opposed by him"; the quoted statement does not follow automatically from Wikipedia's definition of approval voting. Instead of relying on the term "approval voting" doing the job of explaining the mechanism, it would be better for the vote to do the explaining explicitly. The vote does a fair job of explaining right now[2], just that part of that explaining is now in brackets, which seems wrong: the text in brackets is not parethetical but rather crucial. --Dan Polansky 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine, I've changed the wording (without changing anything substantive). Good now?​—msh210 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks fairly good now in that it explains the voting mechanism instead of relying on the term "approval voting". But there is one thing that was better about the previous version: the latest version says nothing about implicit opposition. It seems that the note about implicit opposition disturbs you as self-evident. I admit that it is almost self-evident, but I like stating things that are almost self-evident. If you dislike the note about implicit opposition, let it be.
Why the brackets around "(Signing under "Abstain" is the same as not voting at all.)"? Either it should be said, then just say it without brackets, or it is merely marginal, then don't say it at all; that's what Strunk and White tought me, and I like the principle. But if you are so fond of brackets, they can stay; the reader can just ignore them. I find them annoying, but maybe it is just me. I know that 'Signing under "Abstain" is the same as not voting at all' is self-evident, which is maybe why you put it into brackets, but there was at least one prolific Wiktionary editor who denied this self-evident principle in the past, so it is better stated.
All that said, the current statement of the voting mechanism is probably going to be sufficient if the vote gets started with it. You must be already pretty tired of all the feedback that I am providing. --Dan Polansky 17:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback, but will not further modify the wording. The parentheses are an issue of style rather than of comprehensibility, and this is not a text I particularly wish to have written in publishable format. As to implicit opposition, I think that that is clear, but, again, if you like, please add it back in (and/or make other changes).​—msh210 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

religious fiction[edit]

Is it covered too? Like:

and so on, for thousands of religious narratives that men have invented over the course of history? --Ivan Štambuk 12:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Neutral point of view. Equinox 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What does NPOV have to do with it? --Ivan Štambuk 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to take a pro- or anti-religious stance. Equinox 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
But by including such words of what are today perceived as of religious origin while excluding other "fictional universe" words we are taking a pro-religion anti-other stance. Some of these FUes have already created their own religious movements (Jediism, Matrixism etc.): does it mean that these words are suddenly eligible to be included in the main namespace? Many examples could be found where no clear line could be drawn between what constitutes a personal, subjective religious system, and fiction. --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Christian/Jewish/Islamic mythology have been widely mentioned outside of their religious works, and have had an enormous effect on society and literature. The Jedi/Matrix religion stuff is generally only mentioned by a small community of nerds trying to propagate their new made-up religion. Equinox 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
So have Harry Potter, Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Avatar etc. They have audiences of hundreds of millions, and words from those FUes are known to more people than >90% of all English words that we do include in the main namespace. Historical effect on society/literature is irrelevant, but now that you mention it, in terms of cultural significance these FUs have been dominating the stage for the last few decades. They are vigorous and have endless supply of new contenders eager to grab their slice of book/movie/computer game sales, while religions are based on a fixed corpus with an ever-diminishing influence on society in general. If anything, we should cater to modern customs, embracing these FU words and enabling users to e.g. look up such words as they learn them through games/books/holonovels etc. I bet that much more ESL learners read Harry Potter or LOTR in the original English, as opposed to the Bible, Quran and Vedas. --Ivan Štambuk 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Traditionally, dictionaries are more willing to include material with thousands of years of history than material from modern (and mostly throwaway) pop culture that has only been widely known for five or ten years, however many fans it has. Personally, I'd like to uphold that. I'm sure the tide of Twittershit will overwhelm us all soon enough, though. Equinox 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No. "Fictional universes" does not include mistaken beliefs about this universe. —RuakhTALK 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Religion narratives are hardly "mistaken beliefs" anymore. All of them have been debunked by modern science and proven to be man-written fantasy, usually created by some form of priestly caste eager to perpetuate the ruling regime by specifically targeted propaganda establishing the "laws of universe", with king at the top and obedient workers at the bottom.
For example, most of the modern religions (those that still have followers) have some form of a creation myth that we know today is as at odds with modern cosmology. We know 100% that these are wrong. Just because that there are billions of humans still believing (out of ignorance, indoctrination, stupidity or whatever) that these are true, does not make them true. They are fiction, pure and simple. They don't have absolutely nothing to do with reality whatsoever. The primacy of truth lies in the hands of science, not feelings of whether something is true or false.
Whichever way you put it, it boils down to the same thing: these fictional universes involving imaginary beings and objects were created as a result of somebody's imagination. The only thing that should matter is the extant to which these are used, in terms of authors' diversity, not their etymology, i.e. whether they were coined in the 21st century by J.K.Rowling, or Bronze-age tribesmen from the ME, should not play a factor at all. --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. I knew I should have just kept removing this section. ;-)
Most of your statements are not relevant, and I believe that you are including them simply because you desire to offend. For example:
Just because that there are billions of humans still believing (out of ignorance, indoctrination, stupidity or whatever) that these are true, does not make them true.
No one is claiming otherwise. Belief does not create truth. (And you're too smart, when you want to be, to pretend now that you think anyone is claiming that.) However, there is a difference between something mistaken — no matter how debunked you think it is — and something fictional. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, plenty of past scientific theories have now been debunked, but that doesn't mean the word ether (the fixed medium through which light passes) originated in a fictional universe.
RuakhTALK 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if "billions of people" believe in something, the job of Wiktionary is to document the words arising from these beliefs, not to change the minds of these people. --Daniel. 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Look Ruakh, I'm not "trolling" or seeking to offend anyone. If stating a scientifically corroborated fact infuriates some people, that's their problem not mine. Religious methods of indoctrination from a young age are well documented in the literature, as is the predilection of low-IQ peoples (not necessary by birth, but also by deliberately dumbifying education/upbringing) to embrace certain simple beliefs giving some kind of "purpose" to their particular arrangement of DNA strings. And the evolutionary disposition to develop such predilection, in order to optimize societal arrangement of workforce has also been documented. With that in mind, there is really no justification to treat such beliefs as anything other than personally imagined fictional universes. You can play dumb and split semantic hairs however you like but their is really no difference between personally imagined fictional universe that you believe is true, and personally imagined fictional universe that you know it false. Especially when in the case of former the religious followers usually think that believing is knowing. From the perspective of the latter both of them are fiction by knowing. According to the criteria of as close as we can get to the Ultimate Observer, i.e. objective science, religious fiction is no different than non-religious fiction.
Your example with ether is a bit misleading. Religious fiction was largely not created to describe the real universe. These are not "outdated theories". These are stories made up with a specific agenda in mind - e.g. to give some ruling caste justification to subjugate the populace in terms of cosmic karma, to legitimize genocides and whitewash the conscience of those slaughtering infidels, to increase population because "strength is in numbers" (more like: tax/tithe money) etc. Science discards terms which refer to concepts proven to not exist, religion does not. Religious fiction is immutable and fixed, and not subject to scrutiny and possible rectification. Because of that, it's no different to any other fictional universe: what it describes simply does not exist. --Ivan Štambuk 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruakh would you please stop censoring this section. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. It's pointless to have a vote on how to format "fictional universe words" when there is no clear definition of what such words are. This is an example of linguistic purism: some words are discriminated upon simply due to their etymology, while at the same time there is this giant elephant in the room called religion that nobody wants to talk about. --Ivan Štambuk 23:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I will stop removing this section if you will try to avoid inflammatory language. You believe that all religions are fiction, fine, but we have a number of active editors who do believe in various religions (especially, but probably not exclusively, Christianity and Judaism). You can raise the point that religious beliefs may be false without declaring flatly that they are all "narratives that men have invented over the course of history". Past experience suggests that you revel in such inflammatory language; for example, in a previous discussion, when I mentioned a difference between "false religions" and "fiction", you replied with irrelevant bile to the effect that all religions are false. (Note that my comment had not presumed otherwise. You were just trolling.) But if you will try to act in good faith, I will try to assume it. —RuakhTALK 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I get a lot of "hate" for playing the devil's advocate, but somebody has to do it too. Mostly the interlocutors subscribing to a belief system inconsistent with expounded facts demonstrate some form of personally targeted rage, accusing me to deliberately trying to "attack" whatever the form of belief or collective identity they associate themselves with (by being one of "them"), or in your case - accusing me of trolling and enjoying it for trolling's sake. I find it most fascinating that still in the year 2010, despite vast amounts of knowledge freely available on Internet, that there are so many people still believing in ancient myths. Of course it's not up to me to judge that - but why shouldn't those acts of belief be scrutinized for what they are? There are many scientists supporting strange and bizarre theories that are not supported by evidence, and they get lots of hate too. I assure you that my motives of raising these issues are in the best interest of Wiktionary: specifically by providing evidence that since it's impossible to draw a distinction between the two forms fictional universes in question, because the difference only exists if one is a religious follower in the first place, that those appendicized terms should be moved in the main namespace, and that this vote has no purpose at all. As you've already noted here in the edit summary: I'd vote mu were it given as an option. --Ivan Štambuk 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, we're not quite talking about discriminating against words "due to their etymology": we explicitly allow mainspace treatment for words originating in fictional universes, as long as they've made their way out of those universes. —RuakhTALK 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
But the etymology (origin) of a word is what defines it to be relating to an object in a fictional universe or not. There is no paradise, Xenu, Chakra or Antichrist in this universe. These words/words relating to those concepts were coined in a creative act of imagination by some historical person. More precisely: there is no evidence of them ever existing. For all the practical purposes they are all as fictional as lightsabres, wizards, teleporters and mutants. We appear to allow one set of words relating to imaginary objects, places and people, but disallow another set of words relating to equally non-existing objects, places and people. That looks pretty discriminatory to me. --Ivan Štambuk 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"Nobody wants to talk about [religion]" is not a technically true statement. In the discussion Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/September#English appendix-only nouns, this subject has been addressed and commented by multiple people.
Religion does not fit well a strict distinction between fiction and reality, because there are believers and nonbelievers. Otherwise, they would be akin to other contexts. If Hinduism is reality, then "chakra" is biology. If the Bible is reality, then "Flood" is history. If Scientology is reality, then Xenu is... a political position, I guess.
From a more abrangent point of view, as apparently suggested in the discussion #And the mainspace?, fictional words may merit to be included in the main namespace too, which would result in deprecating that dichotomy, and perhaps effectively defeating the purpose of discussing where to place religions. --Daniel. 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's tackle this sideways, instead of head-on. There exists an important corpus of Medieval European texts, including many works (such as the Gesta Hungarorum) that claim to be histories of the nation in which it was written. Most of these "histories" include an introductory section that traces the descent of the founding/ruling line of that nation from some Biblical figure. Historical research has shown these genealogies to be false. These "histories" included the Biblically-derived genealogies of their rulers to cement power and lend authority and continuity to the national history. So, does that make these "histories" fictional universes? Does any history that contains a similar error become fiction, or simply erroneous? I say they are not fiction. "Fiction" is a particular sort of literature, and these histories were not written for the purpose of being read as fiction.

Further, many religious texts qualify as "well-known works", and so their vocabulary is admissible under CFI without bothering with this argument. --EncycloPetey 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think of false religions as "errors", but even if we consider them "lies", they're still not "fiction" in the relevant sense. ("Fiction" is sometimes used to mean the opposite of "fact", but when we speak of "fictional universes", we mean fiction as opposed to non-fiction.) —RuakhTALK 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's apply the first sentence of CFI, let's include all words of all languages, and this discussion will become irrelevant (it is irrelevant in a language dictionary). Lmaltier 07:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)