Talk:Motorola
Add topicLatest comment: 9 years ago by -sche in topic RFV discussion: July 2014–July 2015
Translations of the company's name
[edit]company
|
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (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.
Motorola and other company names
These need citations meeting WT:COMPANY rules -- Liliana • 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- RFV-failed, but I added a countable common noun "a radio made by the Motorola company". - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
(company sense only) -- Liliana • 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- This already passes. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Where are the citations? - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- the use of the company name. The city sense is not the use of the company name. -- Liliana • 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Where are the citations? - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- RFV-failed, but I added a countable common noun "a phone made by the Nokia company". - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
(Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC))
- What do you make the citations I've just added to the proper noun sense? I've also added a common noun sense. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
(Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC))
- BD's citations establish that this has a common-noun sense, which is also countable: a car manufactured by the Hyundai Motor Group (which is, NB, not the company that was described by the proper noun sense Liliana RFVed). The proper noun, however, fails (having no citations). - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
(Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC))
- I can't find any citations of the proper noun that pass BRAND/COMPANY, and unlike the other words in this list, I can't find any citations of the plural that would attest a common noun in a way that passed BRAND/COMPANY: all the uses of "Toshibas", "on his Toshiba", "on her Toshiba", etc explain what they are (laptops/notebooks, or in some cases other equipment). - -sche (discuss) 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
(Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC))
- I oppose this RFV nomination. This is a very unwise nomination. These entries are single-word ones, capable of hosting lexicographical material such as etymology, pronunciation and translation into other languages; multiple of the nominated items already do. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. WT:COMPANY is not a plain RFV regulation; it is one that places additional hurdles on company names, for reasons that I still do not undertand and that are IMHO not explained at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. The opposers have not explained why company names must be excluded while place names can be included. The arguing in the vote is along the line "we need some rules or else will have too many company names", but the opposers have not proposed any rules, and have not explained what is wrong with having a large number attested single-word company names. As for plain RFV nomination, all terms are clearly in widespread use, and RFV does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- We have a certain user here who often likes to say "no consensus -- status quo ante". — Keφr 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- For one thing, the status quo ante before this RFV for the nominated terms in the namespace is that Wiktionary has them. But let us look broader, at the status of company names in the mainspace in general, not just the nominated ones. As for most of the nominated terms, they are quite recent, so they are a poor indication of "ante": Motorola (since August 2012), Samsung (since August 2012), Hyundai (since September 2012), Toshiba (since March 2013), and Mitsubishi (since April 2013). However, Wiktionary had company names as early as in 2004 - Sony; Apple, BMW, FedEx, Gibson, Google, IBM,Kawasaki, Mobil, Nokia, Peugeot, Pixar, Raleigh, Toyota and Volvo are all from 2005, all as company names. More company names are listed at User talk:Dan Polansky#Company names. There were some deletions, including Atari, Exxon, Microsoft and Verizon, and probably other. As for the current WT:COMPANY text in CFI, it was entered there without a vote and even without a discussion AFAICT, so it never was supported by consensus by any stretch; the diffs that I found are diff (22 May 2005) and diff (21 November 2007). So I am not sure what your point really is. In any case, I consider this use of RFV to be an abuse of it, by a person who could not get his or her way by a proper consensus-based channel, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames_with_linguistic_information_2 under former user name Prince Kassad, newly Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. — Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that no one removed the offending part from the CFI after it was added is wholly immaterial. I for one never felt comfortable making changes to a policy page that said at the top of the page that changes should not be done without a vote. For some time, I naively thought that CFI was really based on consensus; I only discovered later that it was not so. As a result, I set up a multitude of votes to remove things from CFI that were not supported by consensus. Some were a pass, some were a fail. Some of the best examples of things that were in CFI for ages with most people not taking them seriously is the attributive-use rule, removed via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities. The trick of adding stuff to policy pages and hoping that people will not remove them for the fear of edit war was tried in Wiktionary multiple times by various editors, with a considerable success. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. — Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- For one thing, the status quo ante before this RFV for the nominated terms in the namespace is that Wiktionary has them. But let us look broader, at the status of company names in the mainspace in general, not just the nominated ones. As for most of the nominated terms, they are quite recent, so they are a poor indication of "ante": Motorola (since August 2012), Samsung (since August 2012), Hyundai (since September 2012), Toshiba (since March 2013), and Mitsubishi (since April 2013). However, Wiktionary had company names as early as in 2004 - Sony; Apple, BMW, FedEx, Gibson, Google, IBM,Kawasaki, Mobil, Nokia, Peugeot, Pixar, Raleigh, Toyota and Volvo are all from 2005, all as company names. More company names are listed at User talk:Dan Polansky#Company names. There were some deletions, including Atari, Exxon, Microsoft and Verizon, and probably other. As for the current WT:COMPANY text in CFI, it was entered there without a vote and even without a discussion AFAICT, so it never was supported by consensus by any stretch; the diffs that I found are diff (22 May 2005) and diff (21 November 2007). So I am not sure what your point really is. In any case, I consider this use of RFV to be an abuse of it, by a person who could not get his or her way by a proper consensus-based channel, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames_with_linguistic_information_2 under former user name Prince Kassad, newly Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- We have a certain user here who often likes to say "no consensus -- status quo ante". — Keφr 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know, which rule could be applicable here but I vote keep all and I think we should keep all notable one word company names for the same reason we keep countries and place names. People are likely to look them up, search translations or want to find etymology, pronunciation. The more linguistic info such entries contain, the more important and interesting they are. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- A weak keep, if only to explain why at some international go tournaments one isn't allowed to bid "3 diamonds" in some of the bridge side tournaments. OTOH, I don't know whether I would write down my bid as "Mitsubishi" or "mitsubishi" (if I weren't allowed to write "3♦"). If proper nouns are used so often that puns with them are understood by relative outsiders, then we help our users by describing those secondary meanings. --80.114.178.7 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have added four citations for Hyundai which I believe meet our strictures for brand names. bd2412 T 15:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Those support a common noun meaning "car", not the proper noun meaning "a company". - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've added citations of three common-noun senses of Mitsubishi, including "car", "plane" and "drug". I'm not seeing adequate citations of the proper noun. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)