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

Deletion discussion[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


RFV-sense "Mormon name for honeybee". I'm guessing it's not a proper noun even if it is attested, and I'm curious whether it's capitalized or not. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's in the Mormon language, which is a conlang not approved in the mainspace. That said, it has been borrowed into English in lowercase to mean the honeybee in the Book of Mormon, so that's one cite. Is this book (which incidentally quotes the use of the term in the Book of Mormon) a use when it says "So just what is a deseret anyway"? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Is Book of Mormon a well-known work? — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it immediately defines what it means by "deseret", so by the spirit of the law, it shouldn't count IMO. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I just checked four editions of the Book of Mormon: one from 1840 and one from 2004 use "deseret", one from 1852 and one from 1881 do use "Deseret". None put the term in italics, though only the 2004 one uses italics anywhere. That a definition immediately follows doesn't necessarily disqualify the use; WT:CFI explicitly calls “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” a "fine" use. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the Book of Mormon isn't a use. I'm saying that because it defines the term, it quite possibly doesn't deserve to be considered a well-known work (IMO the criterion was put in for rare terms in widely read texts that people might look up in confusion). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I thought the Book of Mormon was written in English, not Mormon. The "Mormon language" is just American English with a few variations, Deseret being one of them Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If it is English, then why does the given citation say that Deseret is "by interpretation" a honeybee? By interpretation from what language? Equinox 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The Book of Mormon is indeed in English, but deseret is given as the word for honeybee in the language of the Jaredites. Non-Mormons would say it's a word belonging to a conlan peculiar to a single fictional universe. Mormons would say that it's a mention of a foreign-language word, just like all the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words and phrases mentioned in the Bible. Or are you suggesting that "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is English by virtue of being in the King James Version of the New Testament? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a refutable presumption that terms which appear in (e.g.) English-language texts are English. You can refute this presumption by showing that the term is a term in another language and not in English. Wiktionary's structure is such that doing only the second half of that, i.e. showing that the term is not a term in English, is not possible: pages must have language statements.
The Book of Mormon is an English-language text; it uses the term "deseret"/"Deseret". Wiktionary does not recognise Jaredite as a language and grant it a code or a header, so "deseret"/"Deseret" cannot have the language statement ==Jaredite==. It has not been (and, I believe, cannot be) shown to deserve any header other than ==Jaredite== or ==English==. Ergo, it must be ==English==. Compare ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn#English.
As EP suggested regarding that entry, perhaps "we should explain with Usage notes that the phrase appears in English fiction, and so is technically English, but is intended to represent" Jaredite. (But as demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs, it cannot be ==Jaredite==.)
Note that it is possible to make an end run around this logic, and do away with the mainspace entries for ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn and the BOM citation of deseret/Deseret, by approving Jaredite and Cthulhuese as appendix-only or even main-namespace constructed languages. It would then still remain to be seen if "deseret"/"Deseret" is used in any English-language texts, in which case it could still be English (like "à la", etc). - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd keep this based on use in the Book of Mormon. It's as English is padawan. bd2412 T 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am closing this as verified based on its use in a well-known work, the Book of Mormon. Whether it should be deleted despite that would be an RfD matter. bd2412 T 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–October 2015[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

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

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


Rfv-sense (Mormonism) honeybee. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This passed RFV before on the basis that it occurs in a well-known work. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Since that's no longer valid, its status is that it has one supporting quotation and requires two more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That damn vote passed?! I need to start paying more attention to things. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, could you link Ungoliant and me to said vote? Purplebackpack89 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Here you go.Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be some sort of system to notify active editors about major policy change proposals. Because, as seems to be the case here, a major policy change proposal flew under a lot of users' radars, and thus the outcome of the vote may very well be a product of said lack of awareness rather than genuine community consensus. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Such changes should indeed be added to WT:N4E. But active users who care about policy are generally expected to frequent the BP, where all such votes are advertised. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Users can watchlist WT:VOTE to be notified of votes, or can frequent the WT:BP, where votes are advertised. If people can't be arsed to watchlist at least one of those pages, I expect they probably tune out WT:N4E and would tune out even a more invasive/harassing system, like posting talk page messages about every new vote or new policy vote (compare how much of my Wikipedia talk page consists of Signpost notices I usually don't read). - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was thinking of something more along the lines of posting notices on user talk pages. The most effective way to get the word out about upcoming votes in real life is probably to directly contact potential voters. I get mailed a notice every time there's going to be a federal election. Elections Canada doesn't just post mass notices on community bulletin boards and in newspapers. People naturally filter out information when they're being hit with a lot of it at once, and thus it's easy for relevant messages to get lost among all the noise. "News for Editors" is mostly used for technical updates, and not everyone regularly frequents BP. Nor should they be expected to, frankly. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Cloudcuckoolander: About notification of policy change proposals: they are all listed at WT:VOTE. They must be. The votes last at least one month. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3 lasted from 23 March 2014 to 24 Jul 2014 and was actually closed only on 17 August 2014, which was about 5 months later. To make sure you do not miss a policy change proposal, check WT:VOTE once a month and you should be safe. WT:VOTE hardly ever has more than 10 items listed, so it is easy to overview and keep an eye on. Yes, people should not need to frequent BP, only WT:VOTE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Searching for the plural, I find one citation where it's clearly a typo for "deserts", and one where it's probably a typo for "deserts": Citations:deseret. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I found two citations which attribute the meaning "honeybee" to it, but they're both really mention-y and explicit about the fact that they're quoting the Book of Mormon. (Also, all of the citations, including the one in Deseret, are lowercase.) - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see, even the quote from the Book of Mormon doesn't cite deseret as an English word - it just gives a word in a non-English language and immediately glosses it (whether or not the language was invented by Smith seems immaterial here, per Talk:ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn). You might as well say that the Vonnegut quote "Their address was this: "Schlachthof-fünf." Schlachthof meant slaughterhouse." is a valid citation of Schlachthof. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The common noun sense "honeybee" fails RFV. The only citation (for the wrong caps) was ;
  • 1830, Ether 2:3 (Book of Mormon)
    And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.
- -sche (discuss) 20:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)