Talk:tanka prose
RFV[edit]
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.
- Discussion moved from WT:RFD#tanka prose.
Page is blatant promotion of a neologism that was apparently coined by the editor that created the page. Same as [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Deletion/Tanka_prose]. Does not exist outside of self-published, non-notable sources, and other sources that have apparently been duped by a hoax promoted by this user on Wikipedia[1]. User:Elvenscout742 16:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is really an RFV question. I appreciate you don't edit here so wouldn't know that. Unless it's so ridiculously obviously made up that we can speedy delete it. I can check. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not an obvious protologism, I have found a book with an ISBN, see here. Whether we can get three durably archived citations for the same meaning is a matter for this page! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be SoP, though? It seems to just mean prose in the style of tanka.Furius (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Entry claims it is a form that combines tanka and prose. Equinox ◑ 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not looking good to be honest, one Book hit, no Usenet, and the only Google Scholar hits are from the same book as the one available on Google Books (URL above). The IP's idea that this is a protologism seems pretty legitimate, just one that the author managed to get into a published work. Though I suppose that's a nonce from a non-well-know work. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't edit here often, but I got in a LONG debate with the user that created this page on Wikipedia. The book you found is self-published by Jeffrey Woodward, and this user is either the same person as Jeffrey Woodward or someone closely linked to him, as both the Wikipedia article and this page existed two weeks before the book was published. (The former cited the book in its bibliography nonetheless.) The book is only in the Library of Congress and Stanford, and no copies of it that have not already been sold actually exist (it is self-published through Lulu). The definition of the term is extremely hazy, as Mr. Woodward himself doesn't seem to know what he means by it - he doesn't speak Japanese and doesn't really understand the history of tanka, it seems, but claims in the book that the term is based on Japanese literary history. Every other usage of the term "tanka prose", except perhaps by accident (over a month of research has brought up only one possible example of such), is derived from Woodward's unilateral coinage in September 2008. The Wikipedia article was removed partly based on its apparent nature as advertisement -- I'm not sure about Wiktionary's rules, and I know it is more open to neologisms here, but surely self-promotion (using Wiktionary to create interest in one's own self-published for-profit book) is a no-no? User:Elvenscout742 01:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The rules for inclusion here are very different from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's concepts of notability and self-promotion do not apply here. The basic requirement on Wiktionary is that the term is actually used. To that purpose three durably archived citations of usage are required, independent of each other and covering more than a year. It is entirely irrelevant how misguided the author is, it is only required that they used the word. The thread has been moved here because the issue is can citations be found (which does not seem very likely at the moment). SpinningSpark 07:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- 126.0.96.220, what I said above basically means "this is very unlikely to remain on this wiki for more than the minimum month because of lack of possible ways to verify this". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia AfD for the corresponding article concluded that no sources independent of Jeffrey Woodward have used this term. I pointed out that the use of the term is misguided, merely as background for why this term has never been used in sources independent of Woodward, and why it never will. User:Elvenscout742 08:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, separate IPs for home and work. I'm the same person who posted above. User:Elvenscout742 08:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- 126.0.96.220, what I said above basically means "this is very unlikely to remain on this wiki for more than the minimum month because of lack of possible ways to verify this". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The rules for inclusion here are very different from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's concepts of notability and self-promotion do not apply here. The basic requirement on Wiktionary is that the term is actually used. To that purpose three durably archived citations of usage are required, independent of each other and covering more than a year. It is entirely irrelevant how misguided the author is, it is only required that they used the word. The thread has been moved here because the issue is can citations be found (which does not seem very likely at the moment). SpinningSpark 07:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't edit here often, but I got in a LONG debate with the user that created this page on Wikipedia. The book you found is self-published by Jeffrey Woodward, and this user is either the same person as Jeffrey Woodward or someone closely linked to him, as both the Wikipedia article and this page existed two weeks before the book was published. (The former cited the book in its bibliography nonetheless.) The book is only in the Library of Congress and Stanford, and no copies of it that have not already been sold actually exist (it is self-published through Lulu). The definition of the term is extremely hazy, as Mr. Woodward himself doesn't seem to know what he means by it - he doesn't speak Japanese and doesn't really understand the history of tanka, it seems, but claims in the book that the term is based on Japanese literary history. Every other usage of the term "tanka prose", except perhaps by accident (over a month of research has brought up only one possible example of such), is derived from Woodward's unilateral coinage in September 2008. The Wikipedia article was removed partly based on its apparent nature as advertisement -- I'm not sure about Wiktionary's rules, and I know it is more open to neologisms here, but surely self-promotion (using Wiktionary to create interest in one's own self-published for-profit book) is a no-no? User:Elvenscout742 01:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not looking good to be honest, one Book hit, no Usenet, and the only Google Scholar hits are from the same book as the one available on Google Books (URL above). The IP's idea that this is a protologism seems pretty legitimate, just one that the author managed to get into a published work. Though I suppose that's a nonce from a non-well-know work. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Entry claims it is a form that combines tanka and prose. Equinox ◑ 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be SoP, though? It seems to just mean prose in the style of tanka.Furius (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not an obvious protologism, I have found a book with an ISBN, see here. Whether we can get three durably archived citations for the same meaning is a matter for this page! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that the term has already been established elsewhere as not being attested in three independent sources, is there a speedy deletion process on Wiktionary? Although, I am uncertain about the rule on here -- if the three sources are only needed to verify that the word is actually used, why do we need three of them that are independent of one another. I have seen evidence that the word is used by one person and three or four people who follow his lead, but that in itself doesn't seem like it merits a dictionary entry. It is a made-up term, and is only known by the person who coined it, his friends, and me and the other people who happened across it on Wikipedia -- it is not actually used by anyone but the coiner and his friends. User:Elvenscout742 05:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my experience, if a term is listed here and has ≤1 Google Books+Groups hit, it is sometimes speedily deleted. (And sometimes not... things used to be ignored on this page for years.) On the other hand, if a discussion develops, the word is generally left for a full month—even if the discussion participants are all agreeing "this word doesn't meet WT:CFI". That's not necessarily a bad thing—when we delete the word at the end of the month, it's clearer that we're following policy and deleting it because it's unattested, not responding to an appeal to speedy it—but it might frustrate you that we seem unwilling to speedy it even after you've laid out the case for doing so. - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all. This page was put here for advertising purposes, but it is less aggressive/offensive in that manner than the former Wikipedia article, so I don't mind it staying here for a while. I also appreciate that I am (and will probably remain) an outsider on Wiktionary, and must respect the way things are done around here. I asked the speedy delete question not so much as a request but out of curiosity -- because I am ignorant of WT policy, I was wondering if a precedent established on WP could be used in the same way it would if someone were to unilaterally reinstate the Wikipedia article without providing a reason. I understand if that happened, the article would be speedy-deleted. ;-) Elvenscout742 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- With only one citation, this term is unverified, so I have deleted it. ("RFV-failed") - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)