Talk:Excel
Add topicRFV discussion 1
[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
These artcles both contain definitions about software that I have recently tidied up. However I'm not so sure they should be in Wiktionary.--Williamsayers79 09:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I recommend keeping Excel. Whether we like it or not, Excel is often used generically when someone is referring to any spreadsheet program. Training courses are often advertised as "Excel courses", regardless of the program used.
(I'm not familiar with Enlightenment)--Dmol 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Enlightenment" is too much to type - it is usually just called "e". It was the first window manager I ever saw to use window transparency (now common on Macs and most flavors of Linux, and sometimes possible on WinXP.) I think it would be pretty cruel (to those who do do the web searches for verification) to submit "e" for "RFV" from here. Keep as Enlightenment or e or both. --Connel MacKenzie 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy if you guys are happy, but we need to keep our wits about us here, I removed spam-like links to the microsoft web-site for the Excel entry because I don't think we should be advertising here, but simple definitions of the software are fine by me.--Williamsayers79 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
RFV discussion
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense: (by trademark erosion) Any similar spreadsheet program.
Plausible. Cites would help. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Compare PowerPoint#Noun, PowerPoint#Verb, and powerpoint#Noun. DCDuring TALK 01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- See the discussion on the talk page. This has already survived RFV.--Dmol 22:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That RfV failed to produce any citations. It is also not clear which sense. I am challenging the second sense and would really like to see the citations instead of accepting some data-free vote. That is the road to prescriptivism. I don't see why it should be so hard if the sense has validity. The various PowerPoint-related senses provide examples. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- There was a time where RFV wasn't about citations, it was just a discussion about validity a bit like the current RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- 2007? DCDuring TALK 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it passed under the rules of the day, but I think you're right to challenge it now. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly, a RfV closed without citations, possibly even with the explicit claim of "widespread usage", doesn't seem to prejudice subsequent RfVs, at least after a "decent" interval. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it passed under the rules of the day, but I think you're right to challenge it now. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- 2007? DCDuring TALK 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was a time where RFV wasn't about citations, it was just a discussion about validity a bit like the current RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That RfV failed to produce any citations. It is also not clear which sense. I am challenging the second sense and would really like to see the citations instead of accepting some data-free vote. That is the road to prescriptivism. I don't see why it should be so hard if the sense has validity. The various PowerPoint-related senses provide examples. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- See the discussion on the talk page. This has already survived RFV.--Dmol 22:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion.
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.
No consensus for inclusion of titles of works. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Possibly worth
{{only in}}-type redirect to WP. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC) It's a brand name of a product, of which we do, thank goodness, have consensus for inclusion if they meet the criteria set out for them. Move to RFV.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)05:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)- Keep. --Dan Polansky 20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excel is a product that is an authored work, protected (in some jurisdictions) by copyright, just like film, music, printed works. Is it our policy that the existence of a brand/trademark trumps the nature of the underlying entity in our determination of applicable principles, policy, practices, or precedent? DCDuring TALK 00:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, good point. I rescind my implied "keep", above, and abstain. Technically, though, Excel also needs to meet the brand-name criteria, and someone can simultaneously RFV this. It will then be deleted if it fails RFV or if consensus here is to delete it. But it's a little unreasonable to expect someone to work on citing an RFDed term, as his efforts may wind up being in vain, so I won't RFV it — now.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've now cited it without any reference to Microsoft or the fact that it's a piece of software. DAVilla 07:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "nature of the underlying entity" of a software product is rather distinct from that of novels, films, pictures, statues, and musical compositions, but also from that of technical documentation and use manuals. While software is often protected by copyright law, this sort of protection is more of a workaround or a practical expedient. Furthermore, the only policy that regulates the inclusion of names of specific entities is this: "With the exception of geographic entities (for which see the section "Place names"), there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." The attestable term "Excel" consist of a single word; its entry can host etymology and pronunciation. --Dan Polansky 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, good point. I rescind my implied "keep", above, and abstain. Technically, though, Excel also needs to meet the brand-name criteria, and someone can simultaneously RFV this. It will then be deleted if it fails RFV or if consensus here is to delete it. But it's a little unreasonable to expect someone to work on citing an RFDed term, as his efforts may wind up being in vain, so I won't RFV it — now.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, but as a generic term for any spreadsheep program. It is quite common in this sense. The definition might need to be expanded or rewritten--Dmol 09:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to add and attest the sense and change the RfD to an RfD-sense. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Never heard of it generically. Please cite if possible! Equinox ◑ 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with no objection to titles here, especially short ones. DAVilla 17:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why are we listing this again. It has already passed RFV.--Dmol 22:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- RfD is not the same as RfV. I am not sure on what basis the RfV was closed. There are no citations for either sense, not does the "reasoning" presented at Talk:Excel seem in the least compelling. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are we listing this again. It has already passed RFV.--Dmol 22:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, because a word (and a common word!) Lmaltier 15:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)