Talk:Wikiquote

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.

---

Wikiquote

To delete, as per Wikispecies - any citations given would be mere mentions, hasn't got into the English lexicon. --Keene 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies restored. DAVilla 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as WMF jargon not specific to Wiktionary (and now properly tagged). Best, -- Visviva 11:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. At best, it and wikispecies belong in a protolog-like list. In addition, they're both sum of parts: wiki + quote in this case.--Halliburton Shill 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no way that this is sum-of-parts, nor is it unidiomatic (which is much more important). Delete it anyway. — Beobach972 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a brand name, is it not? Let's apply my proposed criteria for inclusion of brand names. Can someone show me three references in independent media spanning a year which use the word without describing the product it represents? No? Delete. bd2412 T 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, this seems to show that your proposed criteria get a little blurry when dealing with non-physical entities. There are certainly plenty of Usenet hits (in groups not directly tied to WMF) of the form "here's something that was posted on Wikiquote: (url)" or "I saw something interesting on Wikiquote" the other day." Neither of these mentions what Wikiquote is; but then again, does the presence of a URL indicate that this is a "mention" rather than a "use"?

IMO, the answer to this question doesn't actually matter, because providing an appropriately-tagged set of shared WMF terms is a useful and appropriate role for Wiktionary to play, just as it is appropriate for Commons to host copyrighted WMF logos that would be deleted on sight if they came from any other project. -- Visviva 11:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are Usenet hits even useable as sources towards the CFI? I thought we required materials to be printed (or at least "durably archived"). How can I search these Usenet hits? Cheers! bd2412 T 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, per the WT:CFI, "this naturally favors electronic media such as ...usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google." I'm not actually sure how durable Google's archive can be assumed to be, but at any rate, Usenet/GGroups has been accepted as a valid source here for some time; and it's probably fair to say that there will always be *some* Usenet archive out there. Ayway, see for example groups hits for "on Wikiquote". Best, -- Visviva 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize the outcome of this discussion is unlikely to hinge on this, but I have added 3 quotes from Usenet that would seem to meet the proposed criteria. Interested in feedback. -- Visviva 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Wikiquote

Replace with {{only in}} referring to the glossary that has wikijargon. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete per (deprecated template usage) Twitter. Being a WMF site doesn't give it any exemption and possibly makes it even worse (incest). Equinox ◑ 19:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete per Equinox. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

keep if so, then we should delete Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikinewsie, etc. --Diego Grez 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And Wiktionary, delete the lot, although Wikipedia has other senses. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep these, since no argument has ever been made that including WMF terminology poses any sort of threat to the project, and hosting such terms is of demonstrable value in raising our visibility (and capacity for recruitment) within the Wikimedia community. The only arguments against them seemed to be based on a ludicrously inflated idea of Wiktionary's status. That said, excluding "WMF jargon" is supposed to be settled policy, and I'm confused as to why these weren't all deleted years ago. -- Visviva 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Visviva, per my comment below, we're supposed to delete them even when they can be cited per WT:Criteria for inclusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Diego. Also have the feeling that people are going around hacking apart this wiki with axes, when scalpels will suffice. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I get equally annoyed by measured to exclude attestable terms used on Wikimedia projects like userbox which meets of the criteria necessary, about from a clause about WMF. IMO anyone who wants to keep this should want to keep the name of every attestable website on the web. But... those are all words in a language. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do these meet the standard for attestation in WT:CFI#Names of specific entities? I don't think it was easy to find attributive use even for Wikipedia. The issue it seems to me is whether we eat our own dog food. I am reminded of US Congress which is not subject to many of the laws that it imposes on the rest of the US (eg, sexual harassment). We could be frank and decide to allow terms we favor (linguistics, wikijargon, etc) if there is a consensus to do so. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete and why isn't this obvious? DAVilla 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with {{only in}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment regarding the RFD

If this is ever attested in sources that are durable and independent of each other and of the WMF, I dispute that there are grounds for excluding it. It's worth noting that our rules regarding various other classes of names (including placenames and personal names) have changed in various ways since 2010. - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)