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

I disagree with the deletion order. We have at least SAS, Aer Lingus, Аэрофлот, American Airlines, Finnair, Lufthansa, NWA, Pan-American, PWA, Qantas, TWA. On the other hand, many important ones are missing: Alitalia, Swissair, Austrian Airlines, Varig, Aeroflot, British Airways, Air France, Iberia, TAP, LOT. Hekaheka 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quotes of English -language books which mention Finnair. I know they are weak but not any weaker than the quotes provided for TWA or Ford, just to mention two examples. I made this entry originally to demonstrate the need for being stricter with company names. We should either allow none or all. Any attempt to draw the line somewhere else is going to be arbitrary.

  • The Finnair employee leafed through the red pages, punched an entry into her computer and bent down to read the output. Enemy Territory, Douglas Terman, fiction, Bantam Books (1990), ISBN 0553286137.
  • But all the same, pay attention to one thing which is a part of human existence: on a trip by Finnair from Helsinki to New York you can listen to all kinds of music. Greetings from Lapland: The Sami, Europe's forgotten people, Nils-Aslak Valkeapää, translated into English by Beverley Wahl, Zed Press (1983).
  • The rise in cigarette sales comes from the people in the streets, who are behind in everything. In the car a poster noted that 72 per cent of New York's bank officers commute. Another poster carried the only ad for Finnair I've ever seen. The Power Game, Clay Felker, published by Simon and Schuster (1969). Hekaheka 06:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - kept[edit]

Kept. See archived discussion of 12 2007. 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

RFV 1[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.

This needs cites that meet the requirements of a company or brand name, see WT:CFI DCDuring 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added to the discussion page of the article some quotes of English -language books which mention Finnair. I know they are weak but not any weaker than the quotes provided for TWA or Ford, just to mention two examples. I made this entry originally to demonstrate the need for being stricter with company names. We should either allow none or all. Any attempt to draw the line somewhere else is going to be arbitrary. Hekaheka 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of it being "all or nothing". There are some obvious names that should not be included, where the name it merely the sum of its parts, such as British Airlines, Austrian Airlines, etc. Single word names such as Finnair I think should be included as it is not always obvious what they mean, even if we as regular English speakers recognise it as Finn + Air. A non-native speaker might not know this.

Acronyms and initialisms should stay, so Qantas, BWIA, TWA, etc should survive, if the airline is/was known by that name. Yes, this can be contradictory, allowing BA (as an initialism) but not British Airways (as sum of parts).

Borrowed names, such as Aer Lingus, I think should be allowed, as they are not always obvious, nor are they always literal translations. Aer Lingus is an odd example, being an Irish origin in a country were most people speak English. But what happens with a case like Aerolineas Argentinas. That is the name used in English as well as Spanish.
Hope this makes sense.--Dmol 19:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you on it not being all or nothing. I also share your uncertainty as to where to draw the line on obviousness of non-English-derived names. Currently operating airlines from the US, Canada, and the UK wouldn't make it. What about "Laker", "Caledonian", and "Pan Am". (I guess Pan Am would make it as an abbreviation.) Presumably an airline name should appear attributively in 3 print etc. sources. That would knock out many smaller airlines. I had to work a bit to find attributive use for Lufthansa, which is large and has a lot of history. DCDuring 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this a wider question than one of airlines. If we have brand names of airlines and car makes, shouldn't we have entries for Spick & Span, Fairy, Tampax and thousands of other extremely well-known household brands as well? And if we do, why not include Hellä Mietonen, which is a well-known shampoo brand in Finland? Hekaheka 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Many of the "airline" entries meet CFI because they are abbreviations, which only have to be in common use. I have found what I think are attributive cites to support the inclusion of Lufthansa (which could possiby be considered an abbreviation like "Avianca"). Any brand name can be included AFAIK if there are quotes illustrating its attributive use. DCDuring 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a problem to find such quotes which you've presented of Lufthansa and I of Finnair. What else would one call a Finnair flight if not a Finnair flight? To me the problem is that none of those quotes suggest that Lufthansa or Finnair had a meaning and existence independent and separate of the brand (like e.g hoover does). Hekaheka 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the idea of attributive use is that the use of the word "Finnair" is supposed to occur in such a way that it evokes the meaning "air travel" or "escape" or "foreign travel" without any explicit mention of those things. In one of the Lufthansa quotes, the word "Lufthansa" is overheard from a telephone conversation (with no prior mention of the purpose of the call or air travel) and was a clue that someone might be travelling/escaping and to where. DCDuring 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I added three quotes which to my understanding fulfil the condition. I surrender and give up my crusade against brand names. Ready to remove rfv? Hekaheka 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Let some admin take a look. I'm going to see whether "American Airlines" has appropriate citations. I suspect not. DCDuring 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The first quotation is attributive (in the grammatical sense), the last out of context. Such evidence should count, in my opinion, particularly the latter, but is currently not written into WT:CFI. I'm not sure how the Nils-Aslak Valkeapää quotation adds anything. DAVilla 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RFV 2[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Under what basis did that pass the 2007 RfV? Certainly not by company name (or brand) criteria, as all the cites seem to fail that. -- Liliana 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the 1983 cite, but the other two seem to meet WT:BRAND, as it has been and should be applied to services, notwithstanding literalist interpretations. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Are the cites really worse than say e.g. those of Mountain Dew, Volvo, Qantas, Air France, Lufthansa, Aeroflot, Alitalia or Ford? I think we should be much tougher with all brand names. I would not mind deleting these all, but it doesn't make much sense to pick the companies one by one for discussion. --Hekaheka 14:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
For the brands associated with products conventionally deemed "services" (all of which literally and necessarily have some physical element), the present issue is the applicability of WT:BRAND. For the most literal-minded, I would be surprised if Finnair did not offer "Finnair" coffee mugs and flight bags for sale. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
All words in all languages (it's a word). SemperBlotto 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Why do we even have WT:CFI if such a simple slogan eliminates the need for any thought? DCDuring TALK 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"All words in all languages" isn't the only sentence in CFI. As it happens, the other sentences narrow that initial criterion. Liliana asserts that this term does not meet those subsequent criteria. Therefore, someone must prove that the term does meet those criteria. (All of those relevant criteria, not just the broadest, first criterion.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that CFI is for "terms" - multiple words separated by spaces or punctuation. Is that not the case? SemperBlotto 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"Idiomatic phrases" is just one of the main headings on that page. "Terms" was introduced to be a broader term than "word", including both MWEs and simple words, even those spelled solid and without hyphen. As to this entry, there is a section on "Names". For a time, the principal exercise the page received was for MWEs. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The fifth (or so, depending on how one counts) sentence on the page is "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense": "term" is defined to include more than just single words, but it certainly still includes single words. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say it would be better is CFI didn't contradict itself in several places. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we could have a straw poll in the BP, where everyone could vote on each subsection of CFI, "I like this pretty much as-is", "I would change this" (eg if someone would change the criteria for brand names, but still have special criteria for brand names), or "I would remove this" (eg and have no special criteria for brand names). Then, we can put the sections a majority dislikes onto the (vote) chopping block, and vote on changes to the sections a majority wants to change, if there's any consensus on how to change them. Has that been done before? - -sche (discuss) 07:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt. Might help. Certainly better than votes built on lack of consensus. This may turn out to be close to a w:Constitutional convention (political meeting) in its importance. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we steadily are reforming CFI, just it's a slow process! Since I've been editing, since 2009, our approach has just been to ignore bits of CFI and sort of 'pick and choose' our favorite bits. Which is really a necessity, since it contradicts itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV 2[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.

Previous discussions (there have been several): Talk:Finnair.

Like Amtrak. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the citations? They are independent of any parties with economic interest to Finnair and they do not identify such parties. They are not written by a person involved in the business, nor are they of a person involved or generally about the type of product (airline) concerned. They are permanently archived and span a sufficient period of time. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, struck. (Liliana or others, re-open this discussion if you see some way that this doesn't pass, but it looks like this one does pass, like Hekaheka says.) - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)