Category talk:WMF jargon

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

Deletion debate[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Category:WMF jargon[edit]

I believe that this category and most of the pages associated with it should be deleted. They aren't used much outside of either Wiktionary, Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia project as a whole (I have not heard much even from Wikipedians in normal everyday talk, and it seems that Wiktionary is mostly about speaking rather than writing), not mentioned in any sort of outside sources, and are basically self-references, something that I think should be avoided to meet the inclusion criteria. You can also take a look at the relevant discussions here, here, and here concerning the matter. All comments on the future of these pages are welcome. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly about it. However, some of those terms might justify an RFV, I've already nominated rdr, I think WP and wikt are questionable, among others. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep the category until each item that does not meet WT:BRAND or other applicable inclusion criteria has been removed. The items that them remain could then be claimed not to be WMF jargon, but to have entered the lexicon. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they are candidates for inclusion in an appendix? It would certainly be useful to keep such terms, as they are unlikely to be listed/explained anywhere but here. —CodeCat 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't we have one already? Most of the terms would merit {{only in}}, referring to same. Sorry about any accidental deletion. I have a sticky-mouse-button or slow-processor problem. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't yet. But see w:Wikipedia:Glossary which we might consider using as a start of our own Appendix:Wiki jargon. Our needs are somewhat distinct from theirs. For example, we should note therein each term that has failed to meet applicable CFI criteria and when. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've requested it be transwiki-copied. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
delete. We don't treat our own jargon different from other words, they all have to meet the relevant policies too. Therefore, the contents of this category should be wiped if possible, and anything worthy keeping can go to the Wiktionary:Glossary.

-- Prince Kassad 13:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, delete as it refers to a specific organization (WMF), so it's comparable to Category:YouTube jargon or Category:Microsoft jargon. I don't object to a wiki jargon category that doesn't refer to any specific corporations. On fr: there is a category for this (Lexique des wikis, from memory). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we keep it as a cleanup category until depopulated? Or would you like to flood RfV with all of the members at once? DCDuring TALK 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not like RFV isn't flooded right now. I mean it has 750 KB, these few entries won't change a thing. -- Prince Kassad 17:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think all of them merit an RFV. rdr is already there, and some of them have already passed RFVs (like userbox). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I would favour deletion with possible redirection from those terms to our jargon appendix. Equinox 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete most of them, as as the nom pointed out, almost none of them are used in daily talks, etc. Words like Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Wikipedian, wikipedia (as verb) and Wikinews should stay, as they are the most known projects and words of the project itself. --Diego Grez 20:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    Liked the appendix idea. Move 'em all to a Appendix:Wiki jargon as suggested above. --Diego Grez 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the category says nothing about deleting the contents. Each such term stands on its own merits. Some have already passed RfV.
The Category makes it a little easier to find each of these for whatever we do with them, pending the arrival of the Transwiki or the creation of a temporary appendix. Once the appendix exists the, Category is no more meritorious than a category based on any private organization, political party, etc. and, at that point, once emptied, with wikilinks from the Appendix to each term in the Category, it should meet its fate. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have created a wikilinked list of the members of the en category as Appendix:English wiki jargon. Someone can do the honors for the other languages. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Failed, majority decision. -Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Does OTHERCRAPEXISTS apply here?[edit]

I've noticed a few people in previous discussions regarding the matter invoking the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (e.g. there are many entries on this, so there should be several entries on [related] that) and citing the existence of pages like per nom to support inclusion of others like Wikimedia, just to give an example. To me, this is akin to saying "Oh look! Why not have an entry and/or brief description of every single Google doodle out there or every Pokemon character in existence in context of the Pokemon world (after all, most of these entries, save the well-known Wikipedia, are only used in the context of WMF jargon). And let's also have entries on how Yahoo! toolbar, extensions, and Downloadhelper fit into Category:Mozilla Firefox jargon; and we can top off the cake and icing with popular phrases like gotta catch 'em all or fifteen minutes could save you fifteen or more on car insurance." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy, that's all. OTHERCRAPEXISTS in this case refers to precedents, which are widely used in political and legal circles. Do I trust Wikipedia more than I trust the British justice system? In a word, no. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Though, it can work both ways. On deletion debate people say "X exists so we should keep Y", often editors reply "no, so we should delete X which is just as bad". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)