Talk:George VI

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFD discussion: August–December 2018[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

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.

It is a well put together entry so I am reluctant to nominate it for deletion. Overall, I feel that the intent of the current CFI is that a complete name associated with one individual only should not be included (for example, Walt Disney [the person]) is mentioned as not being allowed an entry). John Cross (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it if it is spelt the same. DonnanZ (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's true for VI in general, surely. It's just how you say six in French! Your argument would seem to support also creating any old person called George just because French people say George differently. Equinox ◑ 13:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, when a foreign term (such as double entendre) has been borrowed into English, don't we create an English section for it? — SGconlaw (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of double entendre, having a French section would be wrong anyway: it's not in use in French, as it makes no sense morphologically.
I suppose that’s a bad example, then. I was trying to think of a term that originates from French but is now also used in English and regarded as an English word. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I've been wondering asking myself that question a lot: from what point can we say a word has been genuinely borrowed in English, and isn't simply a French word used in running text? Per utramque cavernam 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no hard and fast rule. I’d say that a lack of quotation marks or italics may point in that direction, but is not conclusive. At the end of the day, if the term appears regularly in English texts and doesn’t seem to be specifically regarded as foreign by the speaker or writer (for example, “e.g.” and “etc.”), it can probably be regarded as having entered the English language. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that; that's what I had in mind too.
I think something that can help is contrasting the use in different languages: there are some italicised Latin expressions found in English running text I was tempted to label as Latin; then I realised they're not used at all in French (unfortunately I can't give any example off the top of my head). That points towards genuine incorporation in English. But it's a grey area imo. Per utramque cavernam 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you also want entries for every calendar date, because "3rd of November" may not be obvious? Adding a missing word that isn't written is not a pronunciation issue! Equinox ◑ 10:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, whatever kind of issue it is, if it is deleted there should be clear sections somewhere explaining that for people learning English. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. We're not supposed to teach everything there is to know about English. Per utramque cavernam 11:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete btw, strongest possible! Equinox ◑ 10:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I see 6 keeps when I include SemperBlotto and 9 deletes; I see no 2/3-consensus for deletion. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our tradition is to treat 2/3 as consensus and the only formal statutory evidence in that direction is Wiktionary:Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes, which admittedly applies to policy votes. The above is not consensus by any detectable standard. I am not gaming the system. Those who want to delete senses for individual people need to show consensus, which according to the best evidence is 2/3. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/August#Consensus_threshold_in_RFD_discussions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About "this failed RFD *years ago*, you can't come in *years later* and overturn that based on your personal ideas of what an RFD threshold should be... start a request for undeletion if you like.": What does it matter that I noticed this erroneous closure years later? It still does not track consensus as was commonly understood in Wiktionary. "Closure based on closer assessment" is by definition not a closure based on consensus; and the plain majority that one editor proposed does not match any common definition of "consensus" either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the RFD nomination was never closed using closing statement; it was just archived. Therefore, the manner of closure could not have been objected to by the RFD participants. This is in violation of our RFD process which requires first closure, and then archiving no sooner than a week after that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

Dan Polansky (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: September–October 2022[edit]

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

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Let us undelete the entry on process grounds. The entry had the sense "The regnal name of the person who was King of the United Kingdom from 1936 to 1952". Talk:George VI shows this was deleted out of process: the RFD had no closing statement and thus no one could have noticed the closure and objected to it. One could consider this a minor quibble if it were not for the further problem that there were 6 keeps when I include SemperBlotto and 9 deletes, and thus no 2/3-consensus for deletion. This yields exactly 60% for deletion, and I don't recall this threshold being discussed or used at the time. Even now, there is no evidence that at least a plain majority supports 60% to be used as an overridable threshold at this level of participation;Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/RFD voting policies shows no such thing and no other place I know of does. I have undone the out of process deletion but was reverted, so a RFD to undelete seems to be the only option remaining. On substance, the entry is supported by multiple WT:LEMMINGs and is governed by WT:NSE. I have checked M-W:George and it still has this as a biographical names; other dictionaries are at “George VI”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. OED probably does not have it but they also do not have Germany and surnames: their coverage of proper nouns is very minimal and not matching Wiktionary at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Purely encyclopedic. Plenty of dictionaries have entries for Walt Disney as well, yet WT:NSE forbids us from doing the same. Binarystep (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Disney is not supported by WT:LEMMING since no lemming-accepted dictionary has the term: M-W, Collins, Macmillan, and AHD do not have the term. From looking at the OneLook link above, one has to click on the links to see which dictionaries actually have the term: oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com does not have it and neither does dictionary.com; it is in vocabulary.com[5]], but that does not count as a lemming. freedictionary.org has WordNet content that does not serve as a lemming either. By contrast, “George VI”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. is supported by M-W[6], oxforddictionaries.com had it (is now gone), AHD, and Collins. OED does not have the term, but they do not have Germany and Asia either, so nothing to see there.
I will freely admit that regnal names are not terribly useful and are not part of the core of the dictionary, but nor are Auburn Lake Trails, Salamandra salamandra, and Small Magellanic Cloud. CAT:mul:Taxonomic names (species) alone has 5,164 entries and it does nothing but duplicate Wikispecies, albeit incompletely, featuring entries inferior to Wikispecies; CAT:en:Places in the United States has 9,370 entries, many of which are multi-word or feature enumerations of specific entities found in Wikipedia.
So regnal names are not terribly useful, but what is very useful is WT:LEMMING, helping us pull in useful content at the cost of also pulling in some borderline useful content. And it is WT:LEMMING that drives my keep: if the professionals think this is dictionary material, I do not feel any need to contradict them: at worst, we end up having some duplication of Wikipedia, which is unavoidable anyway as per taxa, geographic names and astronomical names. And if it is dictionary material, this also being encyclopedia material does not matter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - it is questionable how we could even define them in a way that isn't patently SOP or encyclopaedic. At least with Dickens you can put "Charles Dickens". Theknightwho (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition "The regnal name of the person who was King of the United Kingdom from 1936 to 1952" does not follow from the parts, that's so sure. And it is no more encyclopedic than Auburn Lake Trails, Salamandra salamandra, and Small Magellanic Cloud. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lexically, it means the sixth monarch/ruler/whatever named George. That clearly does follow from the sum of its parts: George and VI. Theknightwho (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, but our definition does not follow from the parts. One would not even know it was a king of the U.K.; it could have been a king of another country. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or of however many other places, or all the other George VIs that were kings, or indeed those that aren't/weren't kings at all. Better left to an encyclopaedia or specialist reference work. Theknightwho (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny that Wikipedia does the job; I deny sum of parts: one cannot navigate to the referents of the term from the parts of the term without knowing the enumeration of referents of the combination. I do not care all that much about the entry per se; I care about WT:LEMMING, as explained in my posts above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't particularly care about WT:LEMMING as a determiner for inclusion (for one, because doing so would entail that not being included in other dictionaries means we should exclude terms). It's just a sign that the term might be borderline, but even then we need to take into account the fact that other dictionaries might be more encyclopaedic in some ways (e.g. specialist dictionaries).
I don't normally have a problem with terms that can be generated systematically, because attestation provides a natural barrier to including terms like thirty-seven-masted or one hundred and forty-four-forked. With names, however, that's not really the case: it will no doubt be possible to cite tens-if-not-hundreds of European aristocrats for any common name. Not to mention the question of whether these should really be in Translingual, given that names are only sometimes "translated" into the equivalent form.
The fact that it refers to (multiple) specific individuals is besides the point, too, because (a) we can determine that it refers to a person from the name George, and (b) it's narrowed-down by the regnal number. It's just as specific as any first name-last name combination, but it's still systematic. Theknightwho (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "doing so would entail that not being included in other dictionaries means we should exclude terms": Not really; this is not what WT:LEMMING says and no one has proposed that.
Re: "e.g. specialist dictionaries": WT:LEMMING explicitly talks about general monolingual dictionaries. An earlier version of the lemming principle did consider specialist dictionaries, but the 2014 version did not, and that is what WT:LEMMING "codified".
A term is sum of parts if its meaning can be determined from the separate components, per WT:CFI. The meaning of a proper name is the set of its referents. The set of referents of "George VI" cannot be determined from the separate components. It follows the term is not a sum of parts.
As for hundreds of aristocrats, that is not supported by WT:LEMMING; that would only be supported if one wanted to devise lemming-independent criteria. And if one wanted to devise such criteria, one could specify some form of notability; as a minimum, one could use Wikipedia-notability, but one could be more stringent. George VI (disambiguation) lists only few people, but I am sure there are other combinations where WP has many more individuals.
It would be basically a duplication of Wikipedia, no doubt, but it would protect WT:LEMMING and it would be no worse than entries for biological taxa, and not all that much worse than Newtown with all its specific entities covered.
I don't deny that the name is systematic; I deny it is sum of parts. Terms like "X County" are also systematic, and yet are plentifully included. -Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider "John I": “John I”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. supports only the king of Portugal whereas John I would support many more people. Even the WP people would be manageable, but LEMMING does not require us to pattern after WP. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is not what WT:LEMMING says - I never said it did. It's called a corollary. The idea that we should include terms simply because other dictionaries do inherently entails that we should exclude terms simply because other dictionaries exclude them. Indeed, that is precisely the argument that you make when you say that we shouldn't include all those hundreds of other aristocrats.
If there's no argument for inclusion other than pointing to some other dictionary, it raises the question of why that dictionary included it in the first place. If it's simply because the term is notable, then that also raises the question of why we should only apply a notability criterion to proper nouns. We don't draw an arbitrary line with place names, biological taxa etc. as you want to, which automatically makes them different. Theknightwho (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The idea that we should include terms simply because other dictionaries do inherently entails that we should exclude terms simply because other dictionaries exclude them": It obviously does not entail that. Faulty logic. An implication is not an equivalence AKA implication and its inverse. I don't know what else to say. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood the point. I never said it couldn't be overridden by another inclusion criterion, and I shouldn't need to specify that we don't include terms arbitrarily - as such, it does follow in this context. You quite literally made the argument that we shouldn't include the hundreds of other aristocrats because they don't meet LEMMING, as I've already pointed out. Theknightwho (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way - the fact that you're making me explain incredibly basic concepts like this is frustrating, even if I do assume good faith. I don't get the impression that you care to understand my position at all. Theknightwho (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say LEMMING says we should not include hundreds of aristocrats; I said that it does not make us include hundred of aristocrats, and it does not. If we want to include them beyond LEMMING, we can; LEMMING leaves that to us. LEMMING as formulated is an additional inclusion criterion, not an exclusion criterion. One only has to read the formulation to see that, WT:LEMMING, "Terms that appear to be sum of parts, yet have entries in general monolingual dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster but not WordNet", in a page of terms that survived RFD. It does not say "exclude terms that do not appear to be sum of parts yet are not present in general monolingual dictionaries". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You quite literally just argued that we should delete spinning on RFV because it isn't included in other dictionaries, in lieu of investigating whether it's seen genuine adjectival use. It's a perfect example of my point, and why I don't want to see LEMMING used as a benchmark.
I've already addressed everything else in your comment. Please respond to that, rather than repeating the same point in different words. It's fine to disagree, but you're just ignoring my rebuttal. Theknightwho (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you just now: I admit that LEMMING guides deletion in this case, but if it were approved as an automatic rule, the rule would not force the deletion here. It follows from the formulation of LEMMING. By strengthening LEMMING as you want to, you strengthen this argument too - which was my whole point. It doesn't matter that it's not automatic, because you clearly think it's persuasive (or else you wouldn't have said it). You've basically snookered yourself. Theknightwho (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake by invoking WT:LEMMING in swimming: LEMMING is about sum of parts and is an inclusion criterion, per its formulation. It was a slip of a mind. There is a more generic lemming principle: in case of doubt and indecision, consider what other dictionaries are doing. And it is this principle that slipped into the mind. My mistake. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could similarly argue that "Albert Einstein" is a sum of parts: it is anyone whose first name is Albert and whose surname is Einstein. But the term is a proper name, not a sum of parts. We do exclude Albert Einstein, no doubt about it, but not on the SOP grounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Equinox ◑ 12:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: there's no justification for calling this close out of process. It may not have been a good idea, but not following a general tendency to the letter is not in itself a violation of the rules. That's not to say there haven't been bad closes in the past few years, but this doesn't seem like one to me.
A general comment: my subjective impression is that you have an almost religious faith in your powers of reasoning that lends a certain circularity to your arguments. It reminds me of law enforcement personnel who see nothing wrong with doing bad things because "we're the good guys", i.e., "it must make sense because I'm the voice of reason around here." You clearly believe that you're right, you admit your mistakes when you recognize them, and you're clearly acting in good faith, but it's A LOT of work getting you to see when you're wrong. I don't have the time or the energy- hats off to @Theknightwho for trying. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "general tendency" you speak of was specified in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Header, and was there for a reason: to allow other people review the closure. It follows the closure was out of process, but not just in some nitpicking way but in a substantial way: it did not just violate the letter of the rule but its intent. The language above to the effect that a violation of the rule is not in itself a violation of the rules is some kind of Orwellianism I don't understand, but I don't decide here, others said "keep deleted", and that's up to them. Yes, I make mistakes, and unlike many others, I sometimes admit them when I see them. In the above case, I admitted the mistake immediately, so I don't see "a lot of work". The substance of what I was saying above is correct: LEMMING as specified is an inclusion rule, not an exclusion rule. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 2/3 majority is not required, and is not accepted by the community as being required. You have a habit of making arguments based on the premises you want to be true, instead of those that actually are true, which is misleading at best. Plus, do I really need to point you to the discussion on the recent derogatory terms vote where you argued that a literal approach was the only reasonable interpretation, while dismissing the idea of intention-based interpretations? I would advise you to reflect on the term motivated reasoning, and how it applies to you. Theknightwho (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that any other threshold is better supported by consensus. The evidence that RFDs are tallies is overwhelming. And at the top of this thread, I expressly referenced what was being done at the time, when I was active editor here. And the process violation of not closing the discussion remains either way.
"literal approach was the only reasonable interpretation": I did not, I explicitly said that by failure of design, we are forced to interpret it non-literally and that the problem is that the non-literal interpretation is going to differ from person to person. Thus, we are forced to interpret WT:DEROGATORY in a non-literal manner, whereas we are forced to interpret WT:ATTEST in a literal manner so that it makes sense and so that we do not need to delete a large part of Wiktionary within a short time to make sure that "only attested terms are included". But I am not sure the reader of this thread wants to read my self-defense unrelated to this thread. The problem is that the rate at which you produce misrepresentations is so huge that there is always so much to disagree with and correct, and that leads to never ending exchanges, and I am sure that you feel the same about me. This RFD nomination does not look good and the Orwellian atmosphere that has developed in the English Wiktionary is depressing. There were always misrepresentations about consensus and common practices, but they did not directly attack the RFD process itself; they attacked names of specific entities, including geographic names. Some remember. We have fixed this by voting and by fair and transparent processes; I am proud to have been part of it. We allowed the meek to take part and govern rather than deferring to the Nietzschean strong-willed great leaders to tell us what is good and what is not good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misrepresenting anything by pointing out your contradictory reasoning. I note that you've failed to explain why being "forced" to interpret a policy non-literally is a problem in one instance, but apparently absolutely fine when it comes to choosing a threshold for RFD. The only difference seems to be that you support this one.
I'm going to be frank: it is disingenuous bordering on dishonest to argue that the burden of proof is on anyone else to overturn your made-up 2/3 consensus. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to be short since it does not pertain to this thread. The disputed closure violated the RFD header and prevented closure review, and at that time, tallying was being done and entries were not usually deleted under 2/3 threshold; see e.g. Talk:less-than-stellar, but perhaps I made it up back then. Tallying is still being done, people are still posting bold votes, and so on, and so forth. Burden of proof is on everyone who makes unsubstantiated claims and demands to be believed without evidence, and makes absurd claims trivially refuted by phenomena observable by a Martian observer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You used this vote to justify your reasoning, when that clearly pertained to votes and not to RFD. So yes, you made it up back then.
Please try to keep things concise in future. It is a valuable skill in communication. Theknightwho (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said "2/3 is not documented anywhere. You can look at various discussions to see what thresholds were discussed and applied; one such is at the end of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-04/Image policy." So I encouraged the closer to look for themselves and mentioned the vote as one data point. In 2018, I had no reason to believe that "consensus" was defined differently between RFD and votes, and the RFD closer did not seem to think otherwise either. At worst, I made up a connection between "consensus" in votes and in RFDs, but the RFD closer was perfectly free to reject such a connection, which did not happen. For votes, the threshold of 2/3 was mentioned back in 2010: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2010/June#Vote Closure Rubric, not by me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that it was common practice, but all you've been able to point to is your own misunderstanding of precedent. It is widely understood that votes and RFD operate differently, and the recent BP thread demonstrated that. Just admit you don't like the uncertainty and move on, instead of trying to bullshit until you get your way. It's clearly not working. Theknightwho (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "It is widely understood that votes and RFD operate differently": I saw representations to that effect but no supporting evidence. In 2021 and 2022 (not earlier), one said 1/2 was enough for deletion, another one said 1/3 was enough, another said 60% was enough, another said he was told 60% was enough, another said we don't do tallying (we do, obviously), another one said we use Wikipedia's consensus definition (strength of arguments). And yet, no one has posted evidence. These inconsistent pronouncements cannot replace evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that just supports the point that RFD works differently, due to no consensus on a threshold, and you are conflating what people want with what they think current practice is, too. The burden of proof is and always has been on you to show there is one. You failed. Theknightwho (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not support any claim about how RFD works, and it therefore also does not support the claim that RFD works differently. Evidence-free representations have very little force, especially given how different and inconsistent they are. No doubt, there is currently no consensus on how RFD works. I did my best to produce evidence and pointed out to features of RFD discussions that show that RFD is closed predominantly based on tallying, which is obvious to a neutral external observer. As said, the burden of proof is on all parties making claims, on you as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you simultaneously hold the beliefs that (a) there is precedent for votes having a 2/3 threshold, (b) there is no consensus for a threshold at RFD, and (c) there is no evidence RFD works differently? You are beyond reason. Theknightwho (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per the arguments put forth above. Note: I'm not going to reply to any replies to this comment... lol — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, maybe even delete harder and delete the {{no entry}}, per the arguments above and in the last RFD. - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_VI&oldid=69650640"