Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

[edit]
  • Voting on: Removing or trimming the WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia section.
  • Proposed actions:
    • Action 1: Remove the section altogether.
    • Action 2: Remove the third paragraph starting with "Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places".
    • Action 3: Remove the part of the third paragraph starting with "For example: Wiktionary will give the etymologies" and ending where the 3rd paragraph ends.
  • If more than one action gains consensus, the one with the greatest impact gets executed.
  • Rationale: For the vote creator's rationale, see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
  • For refence, the section's current text:
Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia

See also Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.

Care should be taken so that entries do not become encyclopedic in nature; if this happens, such content should be moved to Wikipedia, but the dictionary entry itself should be kept.

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia. For example: Wiktionary will give the etymologies, pronunciations, alternative spellings, and eponymous meanings, of the names Darlington, Hastings, David, Houdini, and Britney. But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job.

Support action 1: Drop the section

[edit]
  1. Support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose action 1: Drop the section

[edit]
  1. Oppose.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — Saltmarshαπάντηση 07:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Equinox ◑ 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose; posted after vote closure date. --bd2412 T 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose; posted after closure. — LlywelynII 07:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support action 2: Drop the 3rd paragraph

[edit]
  1. Support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Saltmarshαπάντηση 07:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (I'd call it the "2nd paragraph", but that's neither here nor there since we're getting rid of it anyway.) Posted after closure. — LlywelynII 07:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose action 2: Drop the 3rd paragraph

[edit]
  1. Oppose.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Equinox ◑ 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose; posted after vote closure date. --bd2412 T 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support action 3: Drop part of the 3rd paragraph

[edit]
  1. Support. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — Saltmarshαπάντηση 07:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose action 3: Drop part of the 3rd paragraph

[edit]
  1. Oppose even this. We do give information on the eponymous meanings of (deprecated template usage) Houdini (we define the term as "The magician and escape artist Harry Houdini" inter alia) and I think the CFI section is good as is and illustrates an important distinction between our entries and WP's articles.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure to understand what "eponymous meaning" refers to, but I doubt it refers to the likes of "The magician and escape artist Harry Houdini". I looked at google books:"eponymous meaning", but found nothing to explain it. Per eponymous and eponym, by "eponymous meaning" of a name I would understand something other than its direct meaning. So "Alzheimer" could eponymously mean "Alzheimer's disease". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree (w/Dan Polansky). There's nothing "eponymous" about referring to people and places by their own names; rather, eponymy is when something else is named after them. —RuakhTALK 08:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Houdini is a surname: an eponymous meaning of it is "Harry Houdini". No? In any event, I think the CFI section illustrates an important distinction between our entries and WP's articles, and my vote remains.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose; posted after vote closure date. --bd2412 T 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain —RuakhTALK 19:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

Action 1 fails (2–3), action 2 fails (no consensus, 2–2), and action 3 passes (4–1, 80%). I've implemented this decision.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI_and_Wiktionary_is_not_an_encyclopedia&oldid=49611214"