Voting on: Amending Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion as follows: After the existing section "Genealogic content", before the existing section "Names of specific entities", and on a level with them, add a section entitled "Placenames", with the following text:
Placenames are subject to the criteria for inclusion specified in the section "General rule", extended with the following additional requirements. A placename entry should initially include at least two of the following:
An etymology. This is not applicable to multiple word placenames, such as South Carolina.
A pronunciation.
Information about grammar, such as the gender and an inflection table.
A translation that is not spelled identically with the English form. A placename that is in itself such a translation also meets this requirement.
An additional definition as something else besides a placename.
Yes, like New York and South Carolina. They just don't meet the requirement 1 (Etymology), two of the other 4 requirements must be met.--Makaokalani13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - please include my vote in whichever option is closest to includingall placenames. (I can't figure it out) SemperBlotto 18:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Moved to this section.—msh210℠18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't closer to including all placenames, this vote is to impose additional restrictions on placenames. Why should this vote be at support? --Yair rand18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A place name currently needs to be used attributively. I'm reading this is allowing any entry that meets that criterion or the one stated above. (Of course, as Ruakh notes, below, the ELE will be worded very badly, but whatever.) Am I reading it wrong?—msh210℠18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this vote will include more, not less place names. In any case, an entry WITHOUT linguistic information can be easily converted into one WITH it, can't it? A basic skeleton for a well-known place name wouldn't immediately be qualified for a deletion but for additional linguistic info. Ask Makaokalani, the vote creator for clarifications. --Anatoli20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it as an iron rule. It would depend on the patroller. This proposal accepts all placenames if the entry is good enough, except multiple word placenames without a translation or inflection, and those that are judged sum of parts. Yair rand sees quality requirements as restrictions. An entry that gives no information about the placename as a word should not be in a dictionary at all - but old entries can be fixed. I admit the wording leaves it open if the attributive use CFI still stands - I meant it shouldn't - but either way, this proposal allows for more placenames than before. The "Special entities" section might be removed soon, see WT:BP#Straw poll on the 'names of specific entries' [sic].--Makaokalani15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I see this as more closely matching my opinion than currently is the case. I think that we should allow the inclusion of all words that verifiably are or were the name of a distinct settlement that verifiably does or did exist. I also support the inclusion of some lower-level names (e.g. districts of cities), but I haven't worked out an objective way to define what I think should and shouldn't be included at this level yet. Thryduulf11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The notion of “linguistic information” for place names is a great way of putting it – the examples of etymology, grammar, and translations are all useful, and significantly more compelling than the current “attributively” criterion. This proposal isn’t perfect (as per concerns below), but it’s a far sight better than status quo.[reply]
Support. I have some doubts, but this seems to be a good enough temporary solution, one that can be fixed in a subsequent vote if a need arises. --Dan Polansky10:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeYair rand 05:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Much as I would love to have the placename issue finally settled, this proposal leaves a lot of problems open. Does an entry have to start with two of these, and be deleted on sight if someone tries to add a place name's etymology/pronunciation/translation, but without anything else? And what about non-English place names? For many foreign language place name entries, the entry could not be added unless the contributor was aware of both the etymology and the pronunciation (simply because no further grammar info exists, no additional definition exists, and no translation section can be added because it's not English). Virtually all existing place name entries would have to be deleted immediately after this rule was put in place. (And one minor point: this proposal still leaves in the attributive use requirement for place names as outlined in the "Names of specific entities" section, making the addition basically incomprehensible, coming right after a section outlining entirely different requirements.) The issue still needs further discussion (though I would be happy with just including all attested place names, with no additional requirements). --Yair rand05:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the issues that I just brought up hadn't occurred to me before the start of the vote. What did you think? --Yair rand05:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this vote should not reduce the existing CFI, so if the new CFI (linguistic) exclude some from the existing (attributive), they should be merged. The proposal may not be perfectly worded but the questions should be on talk page, Yair rand, you seem to base your vote on assumptions. --Anatoli05:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion being voted upon allows a placename entry if it is a translation's and has an etymology. Since every calque or transliteration has an easy etymology, this will allow any placename that is a translation via calque or transliteration. Examples in my own experience are the English names of almost every little town in Israel (many or perhaps even all of which have official English spellings so are easy to attest (see maps, where the name of the town conveys meaning (the street/town is the referent) so meets that CFI)), but many others exist too. I really don't think we want these.—msh210℠16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why don't we want these? Are you voting principally (you're against having the entries for relatively insignificant villages), or because the inclusion criteria has to be refined further? --Ivan Štambuk16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least the latter. We may want a tiny village's name (though I've yet to be convinced we do), but certainly not (IMO) if all it says is "==English== ===Etymology=== Transliteration of (deprecated template usage)פֿוּ. ===Proper noun=== # A place name".—msh210℠17:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could require that in such cases the level-1 etymology is not applicable, and would require at least 2 levels of etymological inheritance (< Hebrew < X, where X could be other language or a native derivation). This other step cannot be automated (at least not easily, and at least not without human supervision).
Also note that all the languages that have some kind of phonetic/phonological orthography usually have relatively complex set of rules in adapting foreign placenames, that even native speakers need to master and often learn by heart. The question of 'transliteration etymologies' is far from trivial. Machine-generating entries in any language from FL transliterations seems generally implausible scenario to me. --Ivan Štambuk17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking it over some more, I was about to come back here and strike my vote in opposition. Not that my objection, voiced above, is invalid, but that there is much to say for this proposal. I would have abstained. but then I remembered Ruakh's point, below, about the CFI's becoming self-contradictory, and decided to retain my vote in opposition.—msh210℠15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeEquinox◑ 16:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Proposal seems confused and overcomplicated. Why should place names have their own special rules? I don't see what the "should have at least two" has to do with anything. Equinox◑16:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the placenames already have their own 'special rules' in CFI: they're only allowed if used in some kind of attributive sense. I agree that they should simply follow the usual CFI. But that is according to some too loose of a criterion, and would allow bot-generation of a large number of placenames with little or no lexicographically relevant data. This vote is a step in the direction of allowing more of placename entries than the current CFI permits. You should be voting for not oppose, according to your reasoning. --Ivan Štambuk17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if only because it makes absolutely no sense to me that we would add such a section without somehow amending the "Names of specific entities" section. —RuakhTALK17:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the proposal stands, we'd have one section explaining that placenames follow only the "general rule" (idiomaticity and attestation), followed immediately by another section explaining that names of specific entities, including placenames, are subject to a special attributive-use rule. In other words, the two sections would flatly contradict each other. —RuakhTALK18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. The proposal needs rewording to match those 2 sections semantically. I'm surprised that nobody has noticed that before. --Ivan Štambuk23:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Would "Placenames are subject to the same criteria for inclusion as any other words and terms, extended with the following additional requirements." have been logical? --Makaokalani12:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The fact that only two of the five requirements need be satisfied to allow inclusion means that virtually any placename may be admitted solely on the basis of satisfying requirements 2 and 3. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for, 1., insufficient attention to integration with balance of CFI; 2., insufficient definition of "(deprecated template usage)placename" for our specific purposes; 3., no research into number of potential entries; 4., the word (deprecated template usage)should could be read as merely precatory, under which reading there would be no limits other than attestation; 5., no user-based justification offered; 6., the labor in attesting each challenged translation or transliteration would be substantial. This seems to be a pig in a poke. DCDuringTALK21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is barking up the right tree, but not really integrated into our methods and guidelines. —MichaelZ. 2010-05-01 18:46 z
AbstainEncycloPetey 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC) There are implications of the proposal I don't care for, despite supporting the general idea of being more inclusive with respect to place names. For one, there is no qualification as to whether the "place name" refers to proper noun place names, or generic place names. Lots of cities have an "X Quarter" or "Little Y". All of these, even when sum of parts, can get in under the current ambiguity. Also, I'm not sure whether I like the idea that all the street names in bilingual cities qualify easily (pronunciation and non-identical translation) while street names in predominantly monolingual cities or districts would have a harder time being admissible. There are parts of San Francisco and Oakland where the street names are given on signs in two forms, usually English and Chinese or Korean, but there are other parts of the same cities where they are not. This doesn't seem equitable to me. --EncycloPetey00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A street named X Street, and a square named X Square look like sums of parts to me, so having translations would not save them. Has anybody actually tried to make an entry for a street name? German street names can be justified because they may be mistaken for common nouns. Maybe street names could be mentioned as language-specific issues in the "Wiktionary:About--" policy pages.--Makaokalani15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain---> Tooironic 13:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I don't feel qualified enough to vote on what seems like quite a complicated issue/proposal. IMO, though, all placenames should be included if there are people around who want to add them. ---> Tooironic13:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "all placenames should be included", then it should be "support", not "abstain". Basically, without exaggerating the fears of too many place name entries, this vote, although not explained in all details, would allow to have a verifiable place name to be added if it has some linguistic information and translation(s), as it should be in a dictionary, the same rules as for any other word. --Anatoli01:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainYair rand 22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Many of my original reasons for opposing appear to be incorrect. I support including all place names, regardless of amount of content. Honestly I wouldn't mind bot-generated place names entries, simply because they will become useful eventually, but then again I wouldn't mind mass-creating empty entries with {{rfdef}} either, so that isn't saying much. I am undecided as to whether this proposal is an improvement over the current lack of policy. --Yair rand22:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to lead to an expansion of place names as far as I am able to determine. The five requirements specific to names of geographical entities can be met for a large set of such names, with a bit of research work. --Dan Polansky10:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Makaokalani 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Abstain - please include my vote in whichever option is closest to including all placenames. (I can't figure it out) SemperBlotto 18:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Moved to this section.—msh210℠ 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Yair rand 05:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)