Talk:Wikimedia

RFV discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Previously requested for deletion. Needs to meet brand names criteria. DAVilla 06:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a brand name, is it? A website might qualify as a "brand name", but this is just an organization. --Yair rand (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I'm leaving this open at RFD then, because I'm not sure what type of citation anyone would expect to see for this. DAVilla 15:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The one class of proper nouns that has no major group of advocates is the group of names of organizations. I would think that WT:BRAND provides a useful standard for determining which organization names have entered the lexicon as something beyond a mere proper noun. We have no policy or practice against abbreviations of organization names, like WMF or the the new CIA Wikileaks Task force initialism, WTF. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WT:BRAND is a poor standard, IMHO, consisting of seven requirements, some of them complex. It is almost impossible for a term to unambiguously meet the standard. Extending the WT:BRAND standard to names of organizations is to basically exclude names of organizations from Wiktionary. I think a name of an organization should be included if it is attestable and it is lexicographically interesting. So "Intel" and "Microsoft" should be included for their having nontrivial etymology and pronunciation, which are lexicographically interesting; "Standard Oil" is a sum of parts with respect to etymology and pronunciation, and does not need to be included. --Dan Polansky 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, company names like Verizon and Wal-Mart are specifically excluded, although other organizations like the Girl Scouts and Greenpeace are not, and we've also allowed terms like Mickey D's and AT&T. A company and a brand are sometimes conflated, like Nike and Boeing, and the overlap might convince us to reconsider. I don't have any objection to including company names, but there isn't otherwise as compelling a reason to do so. Translations, if there are any, can already be located on Wikipedia. If we were to include companies I have a feeling the criteria would resemble WT:BRAND.

For organizations in general I think a lot of the requirements can flattened so that the rules are not so complicated. In fact I think we should think about rolling up all of the criteria. WT:FICTION in particular can be thought of as a very tight requirement on independence. Abbreviations should follow the requirement of not being explained in the preceding or surrounding text. Instead of deciding which rules apply, we should have a list of criteria that always apply, and decide in certain cases how strongly. DAVilla 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Verizon, I know that it says in CFI that company names are basically excluded: "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." But I have no idea how many editors actually support this rule. "Verizon" has a pronunciation, one that I do not know and would like to see in a dictionary; it may also have etymology, although I do not know how to find out about it (these are two reasons that I find compelling). As far as I am concerned, "Verizon" should be included. I have not much respect for those parts of CFI that look dubious to me and lack demonstrated voted support. I have never heard a convincing reason for why names of organizations should be excluded, other than that traditional dictionaries usually exclude proper names, but Wiktionary does include some proper names, to the chagrin of some editors. --Dan Polansky 21:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, Verizon more or less rhymes with horizon. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Wikimedia

Also, same deal as with Wikinews --Felonia 17:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this should be RFV'd per WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, RFV.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be for RFV, but this is going to require demanding attestation work, involcing wrestling with 7 requirements. I would just keep it in RFD, and postponse RFV indefinitely. Felonia is Wonderfool. --Dan Polansky 14:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, no chance but RFV anyway. DAVilla 06:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, as pointed out when I tried to RFV, this is not a brand, it's an organization and thus falls under specific entities. Personally I would delete unless I saw something convincing like metaphorical use. DAVilla 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come across a quote on google books: "Dictionaries are part of what can be regarded as the Wikimedia era" it uses the term 'Wikimedia era" again in Lexicography at a Crossroads: Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Today. Is it a direct reference to the brand or does it suggest it has entered the lexicon? That's with searching Wikimedia (minus 'Commons' and 'Foundation'). Searching Wikimedia-esque gives 4 google hits. I say delete but keep an eye on the term's usage.—Jakeybean^TALK 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted. -- Prince Kassad 09:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)