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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:25, 10 July 2014

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. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support. Nonces that don't get repeated are not worth repeating. DAVilla 04:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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? --Wiki Tiki 89 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]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 # {{support}} --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 06:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 # [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support.''' Nonces that don't get repeated are not worth repeating. [[User talk:DAVilla|DAVilla]] 04:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
+# {{support}}. To the extent that this provision is actually used, we might as well just have an appendix of words coined by James Joyce. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:lightgreen">''bd2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 13:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 ==== Oppose ====