Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-04/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work

CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work

• Voting on: Changing the first part of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation from this:
  “Attested” means verified through

  1. Clearly widespread use,
  2. Usage in a well-known work, or
  3. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
  to this:
  “Attested” means verified through

  1. Clearly widespread use, or
  2. Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
• Rationale: For the rationale of the creator of the vote, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-04/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work#Rationale.
• Some optional questions: If you disagree with removal of usage in a well-known work but see some problems with the bullet point, what are the problems that you see? What sort of modifications would you like to see made to the well-known-work bullet point, if any?
• Vote starts: 00:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23.59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2011/January#CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work, January 2011

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2008/October#WT:CFI and "Well-known work", October 2008

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-04/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work

Support

1. Support Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. Aligns with long-time de facto policy of not including nonces unless they have gained actual use elsewhere, which is determined by getting three citations anyways. Eliminates the ambiguity in what constitutes a well-known work. DAVilla 06:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

   Support Dan Polansky 08:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Support but also support Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Attestation of extinct languages. --Bequw → τ 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC), regarding why, I've commented on the talk page.
2. Oppose for all the reasons given in the various discussions on the subject. Dan Polansky's Joyce example is problematic, but his solution throws out the baby with the bathwater. —Ruakh_TALK 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   Can you name at least one of the reasons? Disclaimer: Tell me if you don't like my responding here, and I will stop. --Dan Polansky 11:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)11:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

   In my opinion, such a discussion should be on the talk page (and already is). --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose Prosfilaes 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Lean oppose; I agree with Ruakh, this throws the baby out with the bathwater. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose Yair rand 07:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose Dan Polansky 09:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I acknowledge the points raised by Mglovesfun and Ruakh: if this vote passes, Old English terms that are attested only by a single citation from Beowulf will fail to meet CFI. I want the well-known-work bullet point to be removed from Wiktionary, as well as Joyce's nonce words (for more of which see the talk page), but the right order of action seems to be to first deal with Beowulf and attestation of poorly attested languages, and only then remove the well-known-work bullet point. --Dan Polansky 09:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

   Name just one word from Beowulf that cannot be attested. DAVilla 06:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   Entry for medusetl has a usage note that says that the word is only attested once, so that would be a word from Beowulf that cannot be attested by three citations from independent sources given the usage note is correct. Other candidates for such words are found by searching for "Beowulf" in Wiktionary. Alas, I cannot claim anything positive of 3-attestability of words from Beowulf, as I know almost nothing of Old English and its literature. I can quote Wikipedia, which is a bit unreliable: "Old English literature, though more abundant than literature of the continent before AD 1000, is nonetheless scant"(W:Old English#Literature). Are you convinced that every single word from Beowulf can be attested using three citations? Whence this confidence? --Dan Polansky 06:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   That was my claim until I realized I can't distinguish Old English from other Germanic languages. The citation of Beowulf actually uses meodosetla which seems to get hits in German and what else I can't tell. Although I did find a contemporary English use of medusetl I've let my mind concede that it wouldn't count for Old English.

   I guess it would be better to say that the issues raised in protest of this vote are better handled by treating other languages differently, especially those that are extinct. Keep your ugly babies, but the bathwater we need to get rid of is use in a single well-known work (but nowhere else) for modern English at least. DAVilla 14:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

   You are right that the citation uses "meodosetla", which could be an inflected form of "medusetl": if it is not an inflected form, then I do not know how the citation attests "medusetl". Interestingly, on the talk page of "medusetl", Widsith writes: "... There are many examples of this word in OE literature, I have added one from Beowulf. ... Widsith 07:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)". Believing this, "medusetl" would be 3-attestable. I do not really know what to make of this. Unfortunately, the other opposers have not tried to actually show us the baby to be protected: show us the words that can be only 1-attested and should be in Wiktionary. The dirty bathwater (objectionable material includable per current CFI) has been documented in detail by Ƿidsiþ on 6 May 2011 on the talk page of this vote, is this diff. The vote is now over, anyway. --Dan Polansky 16:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Decision

• Fails.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)