Appendix talk:Mass Effect

What is this

@Geographyinitiative, are you the new Daniel Carrero? What is this shit? @Equinox PUC – 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I was just trying to branch out a little! I think this is within Wiktionary's scope. Let me know if I did something wrong! I don't know that editor- did that editor do something wrong? All feedback appreciated! Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Geographyinitiative, thank you for creating this appendix.

The creation of appendices like this one, a list of words in a fictional setting, is explicitly allowed by Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes. You did nothing wrong.

If I understand correctly, PUC pinged Equinox above because Equinox has argued sometimes that we don't need any of those appendices like Appendix:Magic: The Gathering and Appendix:Star Wars. But then I'd suggest maybe trying to change the policy with discussions and votes instead of just acting like it's obvious that we don't need them. They are allowed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I will respond to this comment and say that it is my feeling that these fictional universe words can mature into "real world words" like Klingon and similar. And in the meantime, I feel that this Appendix system is or might be a good place to document and think about these words (per WT:FICTION)- that is of course, ONLY if these Appendix words reach the normative "three cites & etc" thresholds of WT:ATTEST that every other word with an entry on Wiktionary has to reach. This is not a place for junk- these Appendix words must reach WT:ATTEST, and if they don't, they should be challenged at RFV and deleted if there is not enough strength. The real problem for me is: if I went full-bore on some of this stuff, would I bang up against Wiktionary:Non-free content criteria rules? I speculate that there are Harry Potter-exclusive words and etc that will be MUCH more frequent in usage than many of the minor geography terms that I can cite for Wiktionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

Yes, I agree that all those fictional terms need to be attestable with three cites in the way you mentioned. As we know, this is basically the rule said in the fictional universes policy. My personal opinion is also that this is reasonable as criteria for inclusion of appendices like this.

Just to be clear, Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes is a formal policy that passed a vote back in 2008. Well, I suppose Wiktionary:Non-free content criteria applies as a policy too. The latter appears to be just a "think thank" that was never voted, but in fact it was approved by an informal poll here anyway.

That "Non-free content criteria" page is basically about using short quotes to illustrate usage. As far as I know, the kind of quotes you added in Citations:Ardat-Yakshi should all be fine. I suppose we simply need to write the definitions using our own words and use some short quotes from multiple sources. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

PUC is correct and this is awful "fandom wiki" stuff. Why people bring it here, instead of getting their own fandom blog, I can't imagine. The argument above "that it might mature into something later" is obviously idiotic: we don't create an entry for the non-word sdfhjsdf because "it might be a word at some future date". But there's no arguing with these Pokémorons. Equinox ◑ 04:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox: Obviously those kinds of appendices are OK per WT:CFI and WT:FICTION.

Those fictional terms don't all have citations at the moment, but it looks like they are probably already citable as they are right now for the purpose of keeping the fiction appendices. There is no need to "mature into something else later", they are already probably good enough.

You mentioned the gibberish "sdfhjsdf" but that's a false equivalency. That is not a real citable word.

Looks like after all these years, you still want all those kinds of fiction appendices to be deleted, but you still treat it as a given instead of trying to create discussions and votes to change the policies for that goal?

If it's true that the fictional words don't belong here at all, I would assume that a vote proposing to change the policies and delete all the appendices would easily pass. Even though in my opinion the current fiction appendices are fine, and we should instead create more of those appendices so our coverage can be expanded with more fictional words. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)