Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

Rationale

Some sentences of the section are not criteria for inclusion of senses or terms ("Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature"). Other sentences seem to suggest criteria for inclusion for names of specific entities that contradict common practice ("But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job.") and duplicate the job of Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities, which governs the inclusion of names of specific entities such as London and Houdini. The most offending part of the section seems to be this: "For example: Wiktionary will give the etymologies, pronunciations, alternative spellings, and eponymous meanings, of the names Darlington, Hastings, David, Houdini, and Britney. But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job". It seems to suggest that specific entities should never have a dedicated sense in an entry for a proper name, in contrast to what we actually do in London, New York, Mexico City, Nile, Europe, Atlantic Ocean and Houdini. Thus, defining place names as "place name" or "name of a continent" is not a common practice and AFAIK is not supported by consensus; instead, we define "Europe" as "The westernmost portion of Eurasia, traditionally considered a continent in its own right, located north of Africa, west of Asia and east of the Atlantic Ocean". For interest, see how "Europe" is defined in “Europe”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., and in particular at AHD: Europe, MWO: Europe, and Collins: Europe, look at AHD: Nile, Collins: Nile and Merriam-Webster: Nile, or look at Collins: Houdini.

The part that I have identified as offending was used in RFD in 2010 against Houdini, now archived at Talk:Houdini.

Let us have policies aligned with what we actually do and what the actual consensus supports. Also, let each inessential part be dropped from a policy page, so that newbies do not have to read through rambling stuff of borderline relevance, such as "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. ... The Wiktionary articles are about the words. ..." --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that "Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia". However, I agree wholeheartedly that entries for Hitler, Hitchcock and the like should have links to the Wikipedia entries of the people that the words overwhelmingly refer to. I would also support entries for regnal names ((deprecated template usage) Louis XIV and the like). Entries for terms such as Chernobyl should also mention what the place is most famous for. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature". While this is true, it's nothing to do with criteria for inclusion. We already have WT:What Wiktionary is not. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would rather see links to the famous Einstein, Hitchcock, etc. in a See also section — not as sense lines. Equinox ◑ 16:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

But we are supposed to define words. In the sentence "Hitchcock never directed a film about Einstein", the words "Hitchcock" and "Einstein" have a specific meaning that we should actually define. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me. "Hitchcock" designates a surname; the person being referred to (who might in fact be any Hitchcock) is context. If a kid says "I'm going to school", he means a specific actual school, but that doesn't mean it gets a sense line. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We can talk about what to do about sense lines of persons, and where the consensus is going. However, the criticised wording equally well pertains to sense lines for geographic entities. I do not believe there is editor consensus for placing something like "A place name" in all entries for place names, nor do I see any precedent in lexicographical practice for this as linked to from my introductory paragraph above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Certain names are widely understood, without any external context, to refer to particular entities. That implication I think is worth noting. "Einstein" is a good example. Without context, it invariably refers to Albert Einstein the physicist. —CodeCat 18:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. But for me, this vote is not about what to do with sense lines for notable people with distinct surname; some editors oppose having them, some support. This vote is about getting rid of CFI text that does not match the common practice--at least as far as geographic entities--and appears unsupported by consensus. If and when we find out what we as the community of editors think of sense lines in the likes of "Hitchcock", we should record that in WT:CFI#Names of specific entities, where we have already recorded that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Eponymous meaning

I don't really know what "eponymous meaning" means. The search google books:"eponymous meaning" finds 20 hits, several of which are not really for "eponymous meaning" but rather for the likes of "... but both stories are eponymous, meaning that they take their names from ...". User:Lmaltier does not seem to know what "eponymous meaning" refers to either, judging from his post now available at Talk:Houdini. All I have to go by are definitions at eponymous, eponym and eponymy. The use of such an unclear and rarely used term is another hint to me that the part should be removed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

google books:"eponymous sense" ("sense" being a synonym for "meaning") does not fare much better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Focus on proper names and more

Why does the third paragraph focus on proper names, and on people names and place names at that? Thus, why does it ignore common nouns? The principle that the definitions should not be encyclopedic applies no less to "cat", "gold", and "atmosphere" than it does to "Darlington" and "Houdini".

Furthermore, in "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names", is it true that many places are known by names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names (but not as place names)? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)