Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment

Proposed proposal

I ponder just what the proposed addition to CFI should be. First, I take phrases from WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND that it could be good to have in stronger form:

1. "terms originating in fictional universes"
2. "which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations that are independent of reference to that universe, may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space"
3. "For [the] purposes of defining a single work, a series of books, films, or television episodes by the same author, documenting the exploits of a common set of characters in a fictional universe (e.g. the Harry Potter books, Tolkein's Middle Earth books, the Star Wars films), shall be considered a single work in multiple parts."

   Based on this section, we could insert (elsewhere, while retaining the preceding section) something like: "Series of fiction books, films, television episodes, video games, or other works documenting <!-- or perhaps another word: "featuring"? --> the exploits of a common set of characters, or some subset thereof, <!-- ...and I'm uncertain at the moment how to end this sentence...something about "are works of fictional universes"... -->."

4. "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense."

   We could make more explicit the meaning of this section (which, I think, already prohibits many of the things we are discussing): "The names of persons or places from, or features of (works of), fictional universes[,] shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense."

   The above sentence may be overly broad. Perhaps "...unless they are used out of context". This would mean that discussion of e.g. MissingNo. or Curselax in a forum devoted to discussing Pokemon or Pokemon games would not count. — Beobach 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

— Beobach 05:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Others should propose proposals... — Beobach 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's generally what we want to do, having terms relating to a fictional universe (as opposed to being part of it) count as fictional as well. -- Prince Kassad 15:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, perhaps it would be a better idea to propose this broader distinction, rather than excluding only one word. --Daniel. 15:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what I am brainstorming above is what this proposal should say. I think Prince Kassad's initial proposal "Notwithstanding any other rules and regulations, the term MissingNo. is not permitted at the English Wiktionary." was a joke, a placeholder... :) — Beobach 21:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Early opposition

I am going to oppose this addition to CFI:

• "Notwithstanding any other rules and regulations, the term MissingNo. is not permitted at the English Wiktionary."

It is ad hoc, and shows no effort on the side of the proposer to explore candidate criteria expressed in terms of properties and relations of the term or sense considered for inclusion. --Dan Polansky 15:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Starting the vote

The vote was started by Daniel Dot on 10. December[1], as planned. I do not see anything wrong about his starting this vote, given that he did it in align with the planned start day of the vote. It even says on the boilerplate in {{premature}} that "Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed", which makes a lot of sense.

After you arrive at a workable proposal of wording, you may start another vote, right? --Dan Polansky 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes, unless there's clealry still work being done on the wording, but there hadn't been, in days, AFAICT, so....​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, this vote hadn't been listed on [[WT:V]], so perhaps it shouldn't have been started.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was only in the proposals list at the bottom, so it should not have been started. -- Prince Kassad 19:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that a vote must be listed at WT:Votes in order to be started. If you did not intend the vote to be started, you should not have set a start date: I do not see how Daniel should have known that you did not intend to let the vote started. People sometimes forget to list votes in WT:Votes, after all. Now that the vote has been started by Daniel in good faith and in accordance with the start date, it would be better to let the vote run its course, I think. After you have a solid proposal ready, you can start another vote. --Dan Polansky 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that last ("Now that... another vote.").​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel started this? How funny! I never really considered the proposal serious, at least the way it was written, and I was worried to think that maybe one of you did. DAVilla 07:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The vote was deleted with a curious deletion summary by Prince Kassad: "Since you can't behave like an adult, it's gone. Deal with it.)". --Dan Polansky 08:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Prince Kassad, this vote should not have been started: the given text was clearly a joke and a placeholder, created so that we could have discussion on this talk page and arrive at a serious proposal, which could then be put as the proposal to be voted upon. It is, of course, straightforward to create another vote. — Beobach 00:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under other circumstances I would think that the creator of the vote was joking. But Prince Kassad has created the vote Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis, a vote on the deletion of a single term, apparently in all earnest. That vote stroke me as inappropriate, although less so than the current one as that vote did not propose a CFI amendment. I would have never started this deleted vote myself, admittedly, regardless of whether its start day has arrived. I think Prince Kassad should better avoid ambiguous jokes, which he could easily do by setting a start day that lied far in the future. In such a multi-cultural environment as this, jokes go easily misunderstood. Is the utterance "Since you can't behave like an adult, it's gone. Deal with it" another joke? I don't know; I am afraid he might mean it seriously. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)