Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Brand names and physical product
[edit]- Voting on: Replacing "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon" with "A brand name for a product should be included if it has entered the lexicon" in WT:BRAND part of WT:CFI; thus, "for a physical product" gets replaced with "for a product".
- Note: Names that some people may consider to be "brand names for products" but not "brand names for physical products" include names of software packages ("Word", "Excel", "Powerpoint", "Windows", "Linux", "Autocad", "vi", "Emacs"), and names of some organizations that also publish books ("Greenpeace"). If the part "for a physical product" were removed altogether, not only names of products but also names of services could be regulated under WT:BRAND, provided the rest of WT:BRAND would be adjusted so that it does not refer to "product" in its specific criteria.
- Vote starts: 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23.59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC) (I have created the vote without supporting the proposal of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk))
- Discussion:
Support
[edit]
Support . Even though I'd prefer the other vote to pass, if that doesn't happen this one's still an improvement over the current situation. -- Liliana • 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)- Likewise support. — This unsigned comment was added by DAVilla (talk • contribs) at 04:54, 5 March 2012.
- Support . --Anatoli (обсудить) 03:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Equinox ◑ 14:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not a huge fan of the brand-names criteria in general, but if we're going to have them, we might as well have them for all types of brands. I don't see why physical products should be treated differently from chemical, psychological, or metaphysical ones. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- What Liliana said.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support —Internoob 21:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC) like Liliana
- Support -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]
Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC) The voted-on proposal increases the power of a regulation that is already too exclusionistic. I see no benefit for the user of the dictionary that results from exclusion of such lexicographical information as pronunciation of attested single-word brand names of software products ("Linux", "Photoshop"); the only thing that I see is a lexicographical loss. WT:BRAND should not be made more exclusionistic; it should be removed from CFI, so that this electronic dictionary unconstrained by the size limits of paper can include as much lexicographical information as possible, including attested brand names of pharmaceutical products, which usually consist of a single word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)- Oppose --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC) As it is, this section is hypocritical, but that is no reason to make it even more restrictive than it already is.
Abstain
[edit]- Abstain “Greenpeace” is a product? The wording change seems commonsense, but that example totally confuses me about the intent and possible repercussions of this. (And Dan Polansky makes an interesting point.) —Michael Z. 2012-03-20 02:22 z
Decision
[edit]10-2-1 - Passes - But I am not editing CFI now. First, I would wait for Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 to end, to compare their results and revise the policy accordingly, just once. --Daniel 19:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the other vote is: "The results of the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product, which is a subset of this vote, will be overridden should both votes pass."
- The other vote passed, therefore this one is overriden.
- --Daniel 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)