Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation

RFD discussion: January–March 2016

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

Federal Bureau of Investigation

This rather hilariously links to FBI. Not a dictionary entry. PS WT:CFI#Names of specific entities says there's no consensus on whether entries like this should be included or not, so it really is just voting. Fill ya boots. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that with the new definition, the page is no longer worthless, but I still feel that deleting it is the best option. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to WP using {{no entry}} in [[FBI]] to direct users to WP and using {{w}} or w: in [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (or delete). DCDuring TALK 19:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: Because the best way to understand FBI is with a bluelink to this definition. Purplebackpack89 04:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  It's comments like that that really tempt me into proposing to ban you from RFD. --WikiTiki89 04:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  @Wikitiki89 Your dislike of my vote is just a rehash of the disagreement we had at about LOL and laugh out loud: you favor having a really, really long definition at LOL/FBI, I favor having LOL and FBI link to laugh out loud and Federal Bureau of Investigation. There's nothing really preposterous about what I'm thinking. You even considering for one second banning me from RfD because we disagree on this entry strikes me as quite ridiculous; I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are. Purplebackpack89 05:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to make false claims. Moving the same definition from one page to another does not make it easier to understand. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  I disagree, that is an opinion rather than a proposition of fact. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  You're right. What I should have said was: You're not entitled to vote on the premise that CFI is wrong. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  I am a believer in jury nullification; as long as a person only votes once I think they can vote however they like and for whatever reasons. - TheDaveRoss 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blue linking can be achieved with {{w|Federal Bureau of Investigation}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The CFI category linked above doesn't quite say that there's no consensus as to whether "entries like this" should be included. It says that some should be included while others should be excluded, although there is no consensus on comprehensive rules for which entries should be included and which excluded. This is a very different thing, IMO, in that it assumes that some names of specific entities should be included, even though it's not certain which. My reading of the discussion in that subsection strongly suggests that it be included. One of the examples given is Red Cross, which is similar in the sense of an organization, although I understand that it could also be argued on the basis of idiomacity. On what logical basis would we include the former, but exclude Federal Bureau of Investigation? Let's consider some possibilities:

1. One is an international organization, while the other refers to an agency of one country. Doesn't seem like a valid distinction; what makes international organizations more worthy of inclusion?
2. There could be other Federal Bureaus of Investigation; not just the U.S. one for which the entry was created. In which case, the definition could be reworded along the lines of "The national policing or detective agency of various states; especially that of the United States."
3. The entry is encyclopedic, and not dictionary material. The first half of the definition isn't particularly encyclopedic; it's typical of entries in many dictionaries (although in this case the wording seems to have been cribbed from Wikipedia). It merely identifies the specific entity to which the name refers. The second half, which is clearly severable from the first, is more of a description of the FBI, and provides more information than needs to be in a dictionary entry; this could stand to be deleted or at least refactored.

The phrase "Federal Bureau of Investigation" is clearly part of the world's lexicon; as much so as "Red Cross" (perhaps more so in countries that object to the Red Cross on religious grounds, and so have corresponding organizations with different names). As Mr. Backpack mentioned below in the discussion of "Royal Marines", the lack of a national identifier in the name suggests that the phrase carries meaning that is not apparent from the sum of its parts; it does not (usually) mean any federal bureau of investigation; for that matter, while "federal" and "bureau" need no elaboration, it certainly doesn't mean "any" kind of investigation, either. It doesn't search for pirate treasure or paranormal activity. It's an organization responsible for domestic intelligence, security, and law enforcement. So the meaning of "Federal Bureau of Investigation" cannot be intuited from the sum of its parts. It can be defined succinctly, is neither the name of a person, a fictional entity, or a trademark, and is a term readers are likely to encounter without sufficient context to know what it refers to (although they are equally likely to encounter it with sufficient context). So I can't see a strong rationale for not allowing a short definition. P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect, although per WT:LEMMING this (and Royal Marines and Red Cross) should be defined here. - TheDaveRoss 14:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What a very odd wording for a policy: [t]erms with little of their own merit for inclusion except that they have entries in specialized dictionaries. Doesn't seem to apply here; "Federal Bureau of Investigation" was defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1956), The American College Dictionary (1959), Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary (1963), The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1968) (cross-referenced to FBI); Webster's New World Dictionary (1970). Hardly specialized dictionaries! Did find a few dictionaries without it: Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961), The American Heritage Dictionary (1969), The New Grolier Webster International Dictionary of the English Language (1973). Most of these did include similar entries, however, such as "Federal Reserve Board". Didn't have a Thorndike-Barnhart to consult! Surprised that "prime number" is one of the examples of a lemming entry; it's hardly a rare or specialized term, and included in Webster's Third; defined in the New Collegiate, but under "prime" (although the phrase "prime number" was used). I didn't check the others for it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording is odd, but the spirit is "if others have it, we probably should as well." I think that the presence of the term in general dictionaries is a stronger factor not a weaker one. I just checked OneLook. - TheDaveRoss 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to WP using {{no entry}}. Why are we continuing to try to be a short-attention-span encyclopedia when we have an amazing encyclopedia just a click away? DCDuring TALK 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion policy states that encyclopedic material should be moved to Wikipedia, "but the dictionary entry itself should be kept." All that's called for here is a simple identification of the term; not a history or discussion of the FBI's activities. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no real objection to us having short definitions of such things, along with a link to the Wikipedia article. The OED does not include it, but does have an entry for Federal Reserve. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep using the lemmings heuristic: present in Collins[1], Macmillan[2], and oxforddictionaries.com[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per DP. It's famous (or infamous) enough. Donnanz (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per Aculeius. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 05:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)