Talk:ObamaCare
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by DTLHS in topic Remove "See also"
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.
Delete: To me, that like screams "Wiii-kiii-peeee-diiii-aaa". Ok, I haven't been here active for a while, but has this Wiktionary got ridden of all criteria for inclusion?? I mean, can I seriously write now an article on Act of Independence of Lithuania? That's a proper noun with no common noun usage (at least attested). -- Frous 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure that ObamaCare should be considered a proper noun; it seems more like an abstract common noun. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Abstract common noun, how? Any examples? Temporarily, you could use any proper noun to describe any kind of policy that someone dislikes, but I would wait for ages for usages in e.g. news articles or columns before putting it here. -- Frous 05:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me that one sense of this is clearly a nickname, an informal Proper noun and proper name: reference to the bill enacted into law, the portion of the law that goes into effect, the regulations implementing it, any subsequent amendments of the legislation signed by Obama. There must be another sense that would be an uncountable common noun which might mean the "medical care received under the program." DCDuring TALK 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Names of specific entities are an unresolved issue and have been discussed endlessly. Since this entity is not a place name, a company name, a brand, a name of a specific person, or an entity from a fictional universe, it basically comes down to whether more people say "keep" or "delete", with no guiding policy. --Yair rand 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. So...isn't there an explicit list of what proper nouns you can add here? Would make much more sense. IMHO, people in general don't seem to have common sense anymore when drawing a line between a dictionary and an encyclopedia... -- Frous 05:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "all words in all languages" - (deprecated template usage) Act of Independence of Lithuania is not a word. SemperBlotto 06:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Move to RFV, and no there aren't many rules on what single words aren't allowed, fictional universe-only terms aren't allowed, but more or less everything else is, unless we decide otherwise by communal decision. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I hereby claim this term is in "widespread use", though particular meanings may need attestation. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Move to RFV, and no there aren't many rules on what single words aren't allowed, fictional universe-only terms aren't allowed, but more or less everything else is, unless we decide otherwise by communal decision. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- My inclination is to keep. It looks perfectly attestable from Google Books, and it isn't a brand. It's more like slang. Equinox ◑ 10:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- You took the words out of my mouth. DAVilla 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why are political brands different from commercial ones? Does that just depend on legalities? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- They aren't trademarks, nor invented in order to market a product. Equinox ◑ 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- This one was invented to demarket a product. The bill title, w:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was invented to market the product. Would an unregistered brand not be subject to WT:BRAND. How about a registered (or unregistered) business name? What about a formerly registered trademark? And service marks?
- They aren't trademarks, nor invented in order to market a product. Equinox ◑ 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why are political brands different from commercial ones? Does that just depend on legalities? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- You took the words out of my mouth. DAVilla 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly we should follow the lead of Urban Dictionary on inclusion for this. Those other dictionaries are so 20th century. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The OED has Clintonomics; I don't see a fundamental difference.--Prosfilaes 00:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per the hundreds of Google Books citations, but move to Obamacare, which seems to be the slightly more common usage. bd2412 T 12:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Frequency of usage of a term is irrelevant for a readily attested term at RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term is a single lexical unit and it meets the CFI based on usage. The fact that it was coined as a derisive reference to a policy disfavored by the coiners does not undercut its status as an addition to the lexicon any more than for Reaganomics, Clintonomics, or Bushism. bd2412 T 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Single lexical units might be subject to WT:BRAND. I doubt that anyone questions the frequency of usage. This is simply a vote on whether we to include this or whether it falls into a category that requires something special. I would argue that, as a proper noun, it does not have meaning, only reference to an individual. Thus it would have a true definition and does not clearly fit under some of the slogans that we invoke when we have no better arguments. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- DCDuring, you don't think that "ObamaCare" is a brand, do you? --Dan Polansky 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I know that Google "brand Obama" OR "Obama brand" (Books • Groups • Scholar) gets a lots of hits. I know that there a lot of books with both "politics" and "marketing" in the title. It may be a culture-specific difference. The US has had a long history of media-driven politics, starting with pamphlets and broadsheets and continuing through newspapers, through radio and television, to blogs and social media. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Care to answer my question about whether "ObamaCare" (not "Obama") is a brand of physical product? (CFI: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon.") Is it or is it not? Put differently, do you agree with this statement: '"ObamaCare' is a brand of physical product'? --Dan Polansky 08:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- You have asked a legalistic question that is of should be irrelevant. Obviously, it is not a physical product, except for the paper and incidentals associated with the service. But, of course, the same could be said for (deprecated template usage) Con Edison (my local electricity supplier), (deprecated template usage) Google, (deprecated template usage) Mickey Mouse, (deprecated template usage) Amtrak, (deprecated template usage) Acela, (deprecated template usage) MetLife, (deprecated template usage) AIG, and (deprecated template usage) Citibank. All of them have trademarked products and non-trademarked product names.
- Do you think that WT:BRAND is intended not to cover any of them? DCDuring TALK 11:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Am I right that you deny that '"ObamaCare" is a brand of physical product'? Do you affirm that '"ObamaCare" is a brand'? You refuse to give a clear answer. While you may think I am "legalistic" ("following the letter of the law [rather than the spirit of the law]") about CFI, to me it seems that you are reading CFI as you see fit regardless of what it actually says, which I find objectionable.
- An answer to your question: WT:BRAND does not apply to "Google" AFAICT. What the intention was of the author of WT:BRAND I do not know, but the way it is worded it does not apply to things that are not brands of physical products. The same for "Mickey Mouse", "Citibank", and possibly the others.
- If you are arguing outside of CFI (which I sometimes do), you should IMHO say so clearly rather than implying that you are actually applying the current CFI. --Dan Polansky 11:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusion of services and intangibles as product would fit under senses 3, 6, and 7 at [[product]]. Thus Google should be included under brand unless we are explicitly excluding services and intangible product. I am also reasonably sure that we would include or would want to include company names and product names that were not registered trademarks or service marks. AFAICT one can develop a proprietary interest in a business or product/service name that is not strictly speaking a trademark or service mark. I believe that WT:BRAND, almost certainly written by a community without any applicable business or legal expertise, was not worded to exclude half or more of the commercial world. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you affirm that '"ObamaCare" is a brand'? --Dan Polansky 06:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusion of services and intangibles as product would fit under senses 3, 6, and 7 at [[product]]. Thus Google should be included under brand unless we are explicitly excluding services and intangible product. I am also reasonably sure that we would include or would want to include company names and product names that were not registered trademarks or service marks. AFAICT one can develop a proprietary interest in a business or product/service name that is not strictly speaking a trademark or service mark. I believe that WT:BRAND, almost certainly written by a community without any applicable business or legal expertise, was not worded to exclude half or more of the commercial world. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Care to answer my question about whether "ObamaCare" (not "Obama") is a brand of physical product? (CFI: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon.") Is it or is it not? Put differently, do you agree with this statement: '"ObamaCare' is a brand of physical product'? --Dan Polansky 08:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I know that Google "brand Obama" OR "Obama brand" (Books • Groups • Scholar) gets a lots of hits. I know that there a lot of books with both "politics" and "marketing" in the title. It may be a culture-specific difference. The US has had a long history of media-driven politics, starting with pamphlets and broadsheets and continuing through newspapers, through radio and television, to blogs and social media. DCDuring TALK 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- DCDuring, you don't think that "ObamaCare" is a brand, do you? --Dan Polansky 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Single lexical units might be subject to WT:BRAND. I doubt that anyone questions the frequency of usage. This is simply a vote on whether we to include this or whether it falls into a category that requires something special. I would argue that, as a proper noun, it does not have meaning, only reference to an individual. Thus it would have a true definition and does not clearly fit under some of the slogans that we invoke when we have no better arguments. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term is a single lexical unit and it meets the CFI based on usage. The fact that it was coined as a derisive reference to a policy disfavored by the coiners does not undercut its status as an addition to the lexicon any more than for Reaganomics, Clintonomics, or Bushism. bd2412 T 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Frequency of usage of a term is irrelevant for a readily attested term at RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this attested term defined as "US healthcare reform plan as envisioned by the Obama administration" together with Medicare, and Medicaid, and also with Reaganomics, Clintonomics, and Bushism. Making "Obamacare" the main spelling makes sense, judging from Google books. Looks like a single word, a closed compound like "headeache". WT:BRAND does not apply to "ObamaCare", as "ObamaCare" is not a brand. --Dan Polansky 16:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with other people's arguments. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, though it could pass very speedily from neologism to dated/obsolete, it is nevertheless a word in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- So are "Cheerios", "Starbucks", and "ThinkProgress". DCDuring TALK 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but as Equinox points out, this isn't a commercial word of any kind, it's just a slang term derived from a proper noun (Obama). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- If we have the nickname, should we not have the bill title, at least as a matter of fairness to offset the pejorative nature of "Obamacare"? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- This phrase does not refer to any particular bill; just as Reaganomics refers to Reagan's general economic policy, distinct from any specific legislation passed in support of it, this term refers to Obama's general healthcare policy, distinct from any specific implementation enacting some or all of it. bd2412 T 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- On what do you base that assertion. Whatever is true about Reaganomics, Google "passage OR enactment OR implementaion of Obamacare" (Books • Groups • Scholar) and Google "signing Obamacare" (Books • Groups • Scholar) suggests that many users are referring to something quite specific that seems to quack in a very duck-like way. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term was coined long before any legislation was signed, or even proposed in Congress. In fact, earliest use dates to mid-2007, when Obama was not yet even a front-running candidate. It seems to have taken off in terms of usage in April-May of 2008, with many voices proposing different possible forms that Obama's health care regime could take. bd2412 T 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never said it was the exclusive meaning. In fact, I am awaiting more cites, depending on the spelling, for common-noun senses to become attestable. Right now, the common-noun sense, based on Groups usage, would seem to be "psychiatric care". DCDuring TALK 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term was coined long before any legislation was signed, or even proposed in Congress. In fact, earliest use dates to mid-2007, when Obama was not yet even a front-running candidate. It seems to have taken off in terms of usage in April-May of 2008, with many voices proposing different possible forms that Obama's health care regime could take. bd2412 T 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- On what do you base that assertion. Whatever is true about Reaganomics, Google "passage OR enactment OR implementaion of Obamacare" (Books • Groups • Scholar) and Google "signing Obamacare" (Books • Groups • Scholar) suggests that many users are referring to something quite specific that seems to quack in a very duck-like way. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- This phrase does not refer to any particular bill; just as Reaganomics refers to Reagan's general economic policy, distinct from any specific legislation passed in support of it, this term refers to Obama's general healthcare policy, distinct from any specific implementation enacting some or all of it. bd2412 T 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- If we have the nickname, should we not have the bill title, at least as a matter of fairness to offset the pejorative nature of "Obamacare"? DCDuring TALK 18:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but as Equinox points out, this isn't a commercial word of any kind, it's just a slang term derived from a proper noun (Obama). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
kept -- Liliana • 03:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (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.
My informal survey of mentions out there suggests (to me, at least) that the lowercase "c" is by far the primary usage of the term. bd2412 T 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any objection to this proposed move? bd2412 T 19:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Remove "See also"
[edit]Why do we have a "See also..." list of variants at the top of the page when all of these link back to here and the variants are listed in the article itself? They appear in the pages for the variants as well. They don't seem to serve any useful purpose. — 91.238.123.116 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- They are applied automatically to aid navigation. It would be impractical to check if they already appear in the article. DTLHS (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)