Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/Deleting list of protologisms

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

Deleting list of protologisms[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Polansky (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support weakly. It is not our business (in mainspace) to catalogue random inventions, and my original feeling was that we should redirect the inventors to Urban Dictionary or somewhere, but since the discussion I have mellowed a bit and I suppose that WT:LOP doesn't do any active harm, and might actually reduce mainspace vandalism slightly. Equinox 22:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm sympathetic to the list's purpose (to keep a list of words until they gain usage and pass CFI), but in practice it seems to have been abused to promote newly invented words, and not to create and investigate new entries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, I mean, obviously. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support. As per above. Morgengave (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support This has long been used as a dump for entries that don't fit anywhere else, in a similar way to the /more subpages we used to have on Wikisaurus entries. No reader will want to look these up. -- Liliana 19:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems helpful in theory, but in practice it isn't working. Haplology (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Policies are not sacred, and people are always going to take a shit in the mainspace as long as editing is easy. Besides freeing up a little more space, I do not see any use of deleting the list. At least it clarifies that the words are not (widely) used. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It serves an important purpose, even if it’s not a particularly noble one. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    What is that important purpose? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Listing protologisms. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Why is that an important purpose? Is it a purpose that is ignoble and at the same time important to Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Because in my opinion it is important. This is why I am opposing deleting it. In yours it probably isn’t, which is why you support deleting it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I see. So we need to keep a list of protologism because it serves the important purpose of listing protologism, important by your lights anyway, without a further explanation why it is important. Enlightening. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, and are you saying that the purpose is ignoble? Or is there something else that you meant by "not a particularly noble one"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Protologisms have never been liked by lexicographers. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Are you saying that the purpose is ignoble? (Yes, No, I don't know, Yes given that ..., No given that ..., etc.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Err, what? Oh, never mind, this isn’t going anywhere. You have a reputation for bothering people who vote differently from you. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I am asking clarifying questions. If you are unwilling to answer a yes-no question with a clear answer from which "yes" or "no" does not need to be merely guessed or inferred, I cannot help it. I am asking these clarifying questions when I do not understand a reasoning or find it faulty; compare your nearly empty answer with the entirely meaningful oppose of Cloudcuckoolander below. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I’m already used to your insults, and no longer care. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    In what sentence in this thread have I made an insult? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    One more thing: you have chosen not to discuss the vote before the vote started, so we have a discussion now, as part of the vote. I believe that discussion is important, as is questioning other people's beliefs and stances. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    You want your opinion to prevail by bothering people who disagree with you (sometimes leading to hilarious results). — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    If you feel bothered by questions asked, why do you respond to them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Many of the protologisms listed (or at least their jokey definitions) probably belong at WT:BJAODN, but there's also plenty of diamonds in the rough just waiting to be polished into proper entries. Things like necrohipposadism, which I found buried on the list and was able to cite thanks to Usenet. I've barely scratched the surface of a single letter on this list (I chose "N" randomly). How many more words can we mine from it? We'll never know if we delete the list before we've had a chance to go through everything and see what can be salvaged (and what should be tossed). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Supposing that we did go through the list as it stands and checked all the words, would you still oppose deletion afterwards? Equinox 19:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think we should go through the list and salvage whatever can be attested before we delete this list. The question is whether the list of protologism should be left indefinitely as a place where anything can accrete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'd say once the page has been emptied of its current content, retain it, but enact new standards so it's no longer just a long-term dumping ground for anything and everything. Like maybe use it as a place to list neologisms that are under a year old (i.e. words which haven't accumulated a year's worth of cites, and thus cannot be placed in mainspace per CFI). Or allow things to be dumped there, but clean it up on a regular basis so that the list doesn't grow indefinitely as it has been doing. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    But how can the page be emptied given no criteria apply to it? What about moving the page to your user space at the point of deletion (in lieu of deletion), so you can work the page as slowly as you need, creating attested mainspace entries based on it? But that assumes that we want not appendix with unattested would-be words, such as rotophobia or tumbruduce. Or how about scheduling the deletion for one year after the vote is closed, thereby giving one year before the page is actually deleted? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    "But how can the page be emptied given no criteria apply to it?"
    We'd empty the list by, 1) progressively going over everything and seeing what can be cited and what cannot, and 2) removing words from the list once they'd either been cited and turned into entries or deemed unattestable.
    "What about moving the page to your user space at the point of deletion (in lieu of deletion), so you can work the page as slowly as you need, creating attested mainspace entries based on it?"
    Right, because this isn't a community project in which people work together to achieve things, it's a project in which disagreeing with someone over the value of a page means simultaneously signing up for the Sisyphean job of single-handedly trying to sort out said page? I give up. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Above I suggested that the list be converted into a "place to list neologisms that are under a year old" after the current content has been cleared out. What I meant by "neologisms under a year old" were terms that have already entered into widespread use but still do not have the year's worth of cites necessary for inclusion as a mainspace entry under CFI. For example, imagine that twiposal arose as a word for a marriage proposal made over Twitter, and that there were many articles in the media covering this phenomenon using this word. The word twiposal would demonstrably exist, but wouldn't yet meet our criteria for inclusion, so it could be housed at "List of protologisms" until it did. And storing such words on the "List of protologisms" page would make it easier to keep track of them, so that they could be made into mainspace entries when enough time had passed (and there are enough cites). I don't really intend to participate in this discussion further, but thought I'd clarify this earlier point, since I realized "neologisms under a year old" could be interpreted to mean the random stuff made up by anyone that "List of protologisms" is filled with currently. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe we should have separate pages by year. Then, once a year has passed, we look at the protologisms collected over a year ago and see if anything survived, then delete the page. That way the page never gets to build up and we have (delayed) quality control at the same time. —CodeCat 22:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I am willing to help go through the existing terms as a one-off job (but not to waste time on it regularly in the future). Equinox 22:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    @Cloudcuckoolander: Why can't the not-yet-one-year-attested would-be word "twiposal" be hosted at Citations:twiposal? We already have countless citations pages for items that do not satisfy WT:ATTEST yet such as Citations:arnophilia; these are at Category:Citations of undefined terms.
    And why can't "twiposal" be posted at Wiktionary:Requested_entries_(English)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Another question: would you support that the items from the list of protologism have to satisfy a relaxed version of WT:ATTEST, where the requirement "spanning at least a year" is dropped from item 3 of WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Anything in LOP that's attestable is there by mistake; the whole point of LOP is that the words don't exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    Don't you think that items that have quotations not spanning a year but otherwise WT:ATTEST-worthy fit the "protologism" bill? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
    Citations pages are fine for gathering and storing citations. The problem with them is that once they're created, they tend to be forgotten, unless the creator is diligent and periodically checks for new citations. I don't know of anyone besides myself who goes through Category:Citations of undefined terms and tries to find more citations for all the pages that've been sitting there for years. So the purpose of having a place to list a hypothetical word like "twiposal" — already widely used in the media, but not yet meeting the one-year citation span stipulation of CFI — would be to try to prevent such words from slipping through the cracks. That is, still being without an entry one year on, not because they're still unattestable by our standards, but because no one's remembered to look for new citations. The purpose of the modified LOP page, basically, would be to gather the most promising words — "promising" in the sense that they're likely to become fully CFI-compliant at some point in the near future — in a single place to make it easier for editors to keep track of them and turn them into entries when the time comes. Which is a role that neither Category:Citations of undefined terms nor WT:REE nor are designed to fill. Plus the page could potentially serve to prevent the premature creation of mainspace entries, because we could have the hypothetical "twiposal" redirect to the modified LOP page until it was ready for prime-time, or something like that. Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    So it looks like you would support that the items from the list of protologism have to satisfy a relaxed version of WT:ATTEST, where the requirement "spanning at least a year" is dropped from item 3 of WT:ATTEST, would you? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    That seems reasonable, yes. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but reform, per the discussion above. —CodeCat 19:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Æ&Œ. It's a place where we can send newbies to put definitions of their made-up words, so we don't end up with it all in mainspace. (It's like /dev/null for protologisms.) We may as well take this opportunity to clean out some of the bad old crap, though; it's not like anyone cares about it that much. This, that and the other (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't believe there is any evidence that the existence of LOP reduces the amout of protologisms entered into the mainspace. For more, see Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2013-09/Deleting_list_of_protologisms#LOP_and_mainspace_protologism_reduction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    Without LOP, we won't have anywhere to point those newbies who actually bother to ask/look around. We won't be able to pretend that we care about their protologisms anymore... This, that and the other (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    We don't really care about invented things, so we don't need to pretend that we do; I don't, in any case. Wikipedia does not collect a list of false statements in an appendix either.
    Re: "It's like /dev/null for protologisms": It's not; /dev/null in operating system does not serve as an archive of all the things that were ever deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    My point is LoP is effectively a "black hole" because no-one ever looks at it - people go in and add their words, and probably never go back there again. This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a useful dustbin where people can put rubbish. Otherwise they would leave it where people can see it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think it works like that, I wish it did or else I'd oppose deleting it too. People already dump their 'shit' in the main namespace (as Æ&Œ put it) and I don't think we'd get more of it if we deleted LOP. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    The only evidence I have points otherwise: Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2013-09/Deleting_list_of_protologisms#LOP_and_mainspace_protologism_reduction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

Vote fails (no consensus, 7–6, 54%). No change takes effect. There seems, however, to be support for some similar future proposal.​—msh210 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)