Wiktionary talk:Votes/2022-06/Updating CFI for names of organizations

Org names that are one single word?

Bear in mind that not all orgs are multi-word phrases amenable to initialisms. See e.g. Talk:Greenpeace. Equinox ◑ 16:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but organizations like Greenpeace are still purely encyclopediac. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't like most of them, as dictionary entries. Another thought (for an ostensibly non-commercial org): Talk:Wikimedia. Equinox ◑ 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Too broad of a proposal

This proposal is way too broad and should have had ample discussion ahead of time. This would bar entries such as European Union, African Union, Arab League, Commonwealth of Independent States, League of Nations, United Nations, and more. As is, I will strongly oppose this type of change. AG202 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The best thing I like about this proposal is that we'd be able to speedy such entries along with there translations. I strongly support this. Perhaps if we need, United Nations, etc. could be {{no entry}}s and link to Wikipedia if that is agreed upon on an RFD. —Svārtava (talk) • 18:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Why should United Nations or European Union not be entries though? We have tons upon tons of place names. It doesn't really make sense to me. The OED and tons of other dictionaries have the UN as an entry, why would we limit coverage that much? AG202 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: United Nations, European Union, African Union etc. aren’t placenames. They are names of international organizations. However we already have UN, EU, AU. See the rationale stated in the vote. By the way, we may still have citation pages for these full organization names if the community agrees. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 02:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: As we already have abbreviations of international organization names, I don’t think the full names are worth keeping. It causes difficulty in maintenance of entries and double categorization. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Double categorization and maintenance of entries is not an issue with these terms. There is double, triple, quadruple, whatever categorization with any sort of alternative form. What's next, are we going to delete United States of America, United States, U.S. America, America, United States of North America, etc. because U.S.A., USA, US, U. S. A., U.S. of A., and more exist? There are a ton of alternative forms for the US that each have categorization. If your goal to fix maintenance and categorization, then focus on alternative forms as a whole. Full organizational names like the United Nations are not the problem here and would not fix the "difficulty" you've mentioned. We don't even have that many left. AG202 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: that’s different, though. There is consensus that geographic locations may be included. However, for terms that are generally not includable because, for example, they are sum-of-parts (for example, the National Trades Union Congress of Singapore), common abbreviations or acronyms of them are includable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I know that, that's not my point. My point was that if Inqilābī's concern focuses around "difficulty in maintenance of entries and double categorization", then their focus should be around alternative forms in general, with United States of America being the biggest proponent of that, with 25+ alternative forms and synonyms each with their own categorizations (some of which are different!). United Nations has 5~6 max. Organizational names are not the major proponent of that issue. AG202 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@AG202: There’s difficulty in maintenance work due to problematic translations of full organization names. Many editors just straightway copy the names from Wikipedias (they’re known for their neologisms). These wrong translations stay for years, and this problem is limited to the class of terms that this vote seeks to eliminate, and not any other proper nouns. It will be a relief for me if the community supports this vote (as I take part in maintenance task). And I’m confused why you’re trying to draw parallels between placenames and organizations, even though both are nonoverlapping domains. If we keep United Nations and European Union, then should we also keep the equivalent South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (we already have SAARC though!)? South Asia is the most populous region in the world, so it isn’t any less significant than other international organizations. But then this sets a precedence for countless numbers of international organizations. So let’s draw the line according to this vote’s objective. And lastly, bear in mind that we are terribly falling behind in our coverage of abbreviated forms of organization names. Editors should focus on only those. We are lagging behind because we unnecessarily cleave to full organization names — so let’s get rid of this obsession for the betterment of this project!. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Could you perhaps provide some actual examples of wrong translations in organization-name entries? My perusal of the edit histories of the contents of Category:en:Organizations has turned up nothing of the sort. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 18:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: There are some editors who frequently add them: diff, diff. Also, for your information, that category is pretty blank — most org names remain uncategorized. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī You're missing my point. Once again, this is not an issue that belongs only to organizational names. There are TONS of wrongly translated terms copied from language Wikipedias, I was the one that took the time to archive the TONS of wrongly translated entries for Scots and Navajo, and we're still going through the wrong translations from Yorùbá, so trust me, I know what that issue is and I also take part in the maintenance tasks. If the translations are wrong, then remove them, that does not lead to the deletion of United Nations. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation is not currently an entry, nor is it found in every other major dictionary like the United Nations is. Like I told Sgconlaw, I made a comparison to the U.S. because it has TONS of alternative forms + synonyms (25+!) that have their own categorizations, so if your issue was that, then you'd better off focusing on alternative forms in general. There are less than 40 full organizational names in Category:en:Organizations, that's really not that many to clean up, nor to write an entire change to CFI about. There's no precedent being set for countless numbers of international organizations, if they don't belong, then send them to RFD like they have been. We are not lagging behind as a website because of "cleaving" to 40 full organization names (for English), and it's not an "obsession" to have terms that many other dictionaries already have. Seriously. AG202 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Spot-on! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 22:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about proper nouns, and this issue is confined mostly to full organization names. We don’t go by major dictionaries, sorry — we are an independent lexical project, we have our own rules! And I’m not focusing on alternative forms, I’m just advocating for the deletion of crap that should not belong in Wiktionary. To quote Mglovesfun: “Let's have faith in our sister projects, eh?”. Also it must be noted that the abbreviated organization names entries have a link to the Wikipedia article. It’s utterly pointless to have them, regardless of their number (40 or 400; may I say that I’m sure that category doesn’t contain all full organization name entries), and irrespective of whether other dictionaries keep full organization names. Wiktionary is vaster than any other dictionaries, being a multilingual project, and therefore it does’t matter if the OED keeps a couple of encyclopediac stuff. But when Wiktionary keeps encyclopediac material, we lose our legitimacy as a special project. I will be happy to hear convincing arguments, not excuses, for keeping these nonlexicographical proper nouns. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"...we lose our legitimacy as a special project" How?? We're a dictionary. A dictionary's job is to host definitions for words and phrases, including those that happen to be names of organizations. For in-depth coverage, we direct readers to the Wikipedia article using a simple link, just like we do for any other word or phrase that has a corresponding Wikipedia article. No need to tear out our dictionary entries for perfectly-functional words and phrases just because they happen to form the names of organizations. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 00:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Let’s then start creating full names of notable people (e.g., William Blake) because the names contained in them are legitimate terms with etymologies. It would be fun. I now realise how wrong my idea was… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that, since full names of people would fail SoP anyways (William Blake is... a William with the last name Blake). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 03:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Untrue. "William Blake" is the WB. It could mean any first-name W last-name B, but when we say it, it usually doesn't. Equally Eiffel Tower could be any tower created by the architect Gustave Eiffel (or any other Eiffel), but we have an entry. Equinox ◑ 04:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We do follow other dictionaries; I would think that as one of the active people in RFD discussions you would know one of the most cited informal guidelines on the forum, the lemma principle, and the amount of words that have been kept specifically because they’ve been found in other dictionaries, there’s little reason for our coverage on those terms to be less than every other major dictionary. AG202 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We don’t ‘follow’ other dictionaries; we use them as a reference to source any information in our entries. If we merely followed other dictionaries, then we wouldn’t have RFD or RFV in the first place. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: ‘there’s little reason for our coverage on those terms to be less than every other major dictionary’ — could you refer me to a policy that says this? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Never said there was a policy. Specifically said that it was an "informal guideline" (@BD2412), though I do wish it were a policy at this rate. And while we may not explicitly "follow" dictionaries, we 100% use them to keep certain entries. The vast vast majority of the entries I've seen invoke the lemma guideline at RFD have been kept at least for English. And tbf RFD & RFV mainly focus on SOP terms and/or terms that are encyclopediac in nature, and they aren't found in every other major dictionary, so there's definitely more purpose to them. AG202 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Actually, it turns out that I did remember seeing it somewhere. I'll point you to WT:LEMMING. So yes, while there's not automatic application of the principle, it does exist and we do generally follow it. AG202 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the European Union, for instance considered a place name, but the United States of America are? - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the European Union is an organization, while the USA is a country. Europe is a placename, but not the EU. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 03:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't clear it up, since organization and country aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, a country is a political organization, but it is not necessarily a placename. We can argue that the area occupied by the country corresponds to a placename, but then the same is valid for the EU. Furthermore, I don't understand your counterexample. Except when used as synonyms, the geographical area corresponding to the EU and Europe are different. It's like arguing that America is a placename, but not the USA. - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: Only United Nations, League of Nations and perhaps also European Union seem to be a bit lexicalized: so if these three terms are exempted from being deleted, would you be okay with the proposal? Also @AG202 ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I would not be as those aren't the only words I've mentioned. AG202 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather have a clear and consistent definition for what should or should not be accepted. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I also agree ^ AG202 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The other organizations that you’ve mentioned are not as important as the three names I mentioned. No other international political organizations are as often heard in the news than the United Nations and the European Union. The League of Nations is also probably equally important as a historical organization and predecessor to the UN. @Sarilho1: If you want to know, the criteria of inclusion would be it should be an international organization of great geopolitical significance as well as it's name has to be lexicalized. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well you did ask me if I'd be okay with only those three, when those weren't the only three I mentioned so of course I wouldn't be fine with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AG202 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, first of all, of course I want to know. Aren't we discussing the proposal? Second, I would scratch the "great" out of your criteria of inclusion. I'm not fully fine with the wording, since "geopolitical significance" seems still too vague, but it is certainly better than no criteria, imo. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I think a policy against names of organizations should be analogous to our policy on brand names. This proposal also needs to be specific about what it would change. For instance, if you count a company as an "organization," then this proposal would swallow up and reverse WT:BRAND — a substantially larger change than is being advertised. Imetsia (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As there’s already a policy on companies and brands, this vote doesn’t cover them. I thought it was obvious. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of this proposal. I see it as a slight update to WT:COMPANY, clarifying that the principle there should apply not just to companies in the sense of corporations set up to, for example, to run a business, but to other types of organizations like clubs, societies and the like. However, I'm not sure how the wording of WT:COMPANY was arrived at to begin with, and how it sits with the current entries of international organizations mentioned by AG202. It seems like this needs some discussion. Do we make a specific exception for international organizations? If so, why? What is it about international organizations that deserves an exception from the rule? (For example, do we accept only international organizations who have states as members?) If the exception is to remain, what is considered to be an international organization – is Rotary International an organization allowed to have an entry? Personally, I don't see a strong reason for allowing entries like European Union and United Nations. These seem quite encyclopaedic to me. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I'm sorry, could you explain what seems encyclopedic to you about European Union or United Nations? All I'm seeing are perfectly-ordinary dictionary entries giving the definitions of these phrases and offering links to their respective Wikipedia articles (y'know, just like any other dictionary entry with a corresponding Wikipedia article) - by your token, we'd have to get rid of every single proper-noun entry that isn't a personal name. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 00:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: I mean that the few lines we provide here as a definition for terms like European Union and United Nations don't hold a candle to the corresponding articles at Wikipedia which treat the subjects more fully, and it seems to me that readers would be more informed if they read the Wikipedia articles rather than the entries here. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The same could be said for any Wiktionary entry that also has a corresponding Wikipedia article. Are you proposing that every such entry be deleted? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not every such entries but every such nonlexicographical entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 03:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And you still haven't explained how, exactly, said entries are "nonlexicographical". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 03:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s explained on the vote page. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 03:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The vote page doesn't explain how those entries are "nonlexicographical". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī - still waiting for an explanation on how entries for names of organizations are in any way "nonlexicographical". The vote page, which you pointed me to, claiming that everything was explained there, does not even attempt at an explanation of how and why these would be "nonlexicographical". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 01:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Use your common sense. Everyone save you, including those who have objected to the proposal as too strict, agrees that we need to draw the line somewhere. Anyways, I already gave the example of full names of notable persons as an illustration of nonlexicographical terms (and Equinox corrected your wrong assumption about such names being SoP). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Yes, and what're your grounds for your conclusion that the best place to draw said line is somewhere that excludes names of organizations? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 08:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The proposal doesn’t exclude organization names — there’s even a category for them. But it excludes most full names. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I know you know what I meant. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The main arguments for keeping international organisations are (a) the significance and interest from a translation perspective, precisely because of their highly prominent international nature, and (b) a strong lemming argument - try and find a modern dictionary that doesn't have an entry for "United Nations". We obviously have to draw the line somewhere, but it's not here. This, that and the other (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī @Sgconlaw Every major dictionary has "United Nations", it is of enough significance to have its own dictionary entry. It would also be very strange to have just had an update to WT:CFI that increased coverage to include more place names like rivers, coral reefs, tectonic plates, and more, only to push for the deletion of United Nations (Sgconlaw, you voted in favor of that change as well). I don't see how those are less encyclopedic than United Nations which is actually in every major dictionary. That being said, it looks like with this proposed vote we will have a conflict with this line: "Cultural and geographical regions and dividing lines" at least for things like European Union and Arab League. AG202 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So, an exception for international organizations the members of which are states? That would exclude international organizations like Rotary International, the Scouting Movement and Zonta International, which is fine with me. This exception should be incorporated into the proposed policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So no entry for the Freemasons either? 98.170.164.88 17:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I still think that is too broad, see: Greenpeace which passed RFD and RFV. I honestly think that using RFDs as they are currently work already to deter additional organizations from being added, and that we don't need a major change to CFI for it. No one has created Rotary International, Zonta International, or Scouting Movement, and I feel that they'd fall under WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY anyways. AG202 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ At the end of the day, what needs to be determined is or are the objective criterion or criteria for determining which types of organizations are thought to be deserving of Wiktionary entries (probably United Nations; perhaps Greenpeace), and which are not (the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, and perhaps even the National Trades Union Congress in Singapore). I suggested that perhaps only international organizations the members of which are states, but that would not include organizations like Greenpeace (which is actually fine with me). Is it felt that as long as an organization is international (has a presence in two or more countries), that is sufficient to warrant inclusion? — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

They don’t warrant inclusion simply because we are a dictionary. Bear in mind that we already keep abbreviations of the names of international organizations, such as UN/UNO, WFTU, NATO/Nato, NORDEFCO, SAARC, etc. etc. Full names of any organizations aren’t lexicalized that they deserve to be included as Wiktionary entries. Nevertheless, I was actually willing to consider the exception of 3 full org names, namely United Nations, European Union, and League of Nations by the (2) criteria of their extreme geopolitical significance as well as the fact they’re slightly lexicalized. However AG202 & Sarilho1 were still not convinced with this compromise, and so I've decided not to allow any full org names whatsoever (howsoever global they may be). And as I've said before, we should be concentrating on increasing the coverage of the abbreviated forms. The full org names are already mentioned in the def anyways, and linked to our sister encyclopedia project. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Personally I can go for that but it looks like other editors may not. — Sgconlaw (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed text is strange

It says: "Being an organization’s name does not guarantee inclusion." So full organisation names can be included if we want to keep them at RFD, they're just not guaranteed a place in the dictionary. But then it says: "Only abbreviations of organizations are allowed as entries." Full organisation names are not allowed at all, effectively subject to speedy deletion? It's contradictory. This, that and the other (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This vote will override any RFD decisions. All existing full org names will be deleted and the creation of new entries will be banned. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, if that's what you intend to achieve with this vote (noting that I don't support it), the wording "does not guarantee inclusion" should be replaced with something stronger. This, that and the other (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I based my wording on WT:COMPANY, but people have always seemed to be okay with it… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Applies to all languages."

I noticed this change that was very recently added, and while I already was almost certainly not going to support this proposal, this seals the deal for me. While your concern about words being encyclopediac is valid, applying this to all languages, especially LDLs, where there's often no corresponding Wikipedia page would actually severely limit coverage as there's nowhere else where this information could be found. AG202 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be a sound policy to include encyclopaedic entries here just because they have yet to be created in a Wikipedia. What if a Wikipedia entry is subsequently created – does that then provide a reason for deleting the Wiktionary entry? — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I updated the proposal so that no one could later complain that the vote was allegedly supposed to apply to English (or other major languages) alone. Funnily enough, the LDL (or any other langs with fewer progress on Wiktionary) translations of full org names could easily be hypothetical or unattested. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī I actually wasn’t referencing translations (which by the way aren’t the only organizations), but more organizations specific to those languages, similar to how we allow all place names or celestial bodies for LDLs. AG202 (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you give me example entries of full org names in LDLs so that I have a better understanding about them? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 02:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Èkìtì-Parapọ̀ as a Yorùbá entry that's already been created, Ẹgbẹ́ Ọdẹ and Ẹgbẹ́ Aro in the future. AG202 (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but Èkìtì-Parapọ̀ ain’t an organization name (judging from the definition), LOL. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 05:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in Yorùbá, not sure what's really funny about that... yikes. AG202 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I had asked you for an example of organization name. The example that you provided is the name of a tribal confederation, which will not be treated under (the future) WT:ORGANIZATION. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is another example why, concerning organisations, we want to exclude only civilian but not soldier stuff as indicated by me in the next discussion. Although I note that the numbered units of armies can of course be SOP. From afar it is hard to tell what the difference between a “confederation” and an “organization” would be otherwise, tribal or not. Fay Freak (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And here lies why specificity is important as others have mentioned. There’s a lack of clarity of what counts as an organization and what doesn’t. This confederation could easily be considered an organization, and it is considered one on the English Wikipedia page for the Yorùbá people. AG202 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, AG202: Nah, confederations formed of various tribes/peoples (and not modern countries) are comparable to states/polities, not organizations. Of course these are virtually all historical ones, are lexicalized, and thus are entry-worthy. They actually probably fall under CAT:Place names or CAT:People. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a place though. Also was not comparable to a state. I feel like I’d know more about this. But anyways, I’m not even concerned with your interpretation, I’m concerned with how other folks will take this proposed clause, since it’s not specific. AG202 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Major change

I made a major change to the proposal by allowing the inclusion of some lexicalized full organization names. The list of examples may not be necessarily exhaustive as regards the political parties, but United Nations and League of Nations are the only full international organization names that will be permitted as entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 04:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is even weirder now, because Republican Party & Democratic Party failed RFD. I don't know why you're open to those but so opposed to Arab League and African Union. It doesn't really add up. AG202 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I feel there needs to be a criterion for determining which organizations are allowed and which are not. Otherwise, one may legitimately ask “why A and not B”? — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to Republican Party and Democratic Party as entries if they are a generic name for multiple political parties. However, letting the inclusion of European Union, Arab League, and African Union will open the Pandora’s box for all international organization names. As a dictionary, we should really draw the line for what is worthy of inclusion — and that is why I’ve created this voted in the first place. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 05:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily unclear why you'd allow political parties (which there are many, MANY of even if they're "generic"), but you wouldn't allow Arab League or European Union when those are much more relevant and haven't had equivalents fail RFD. AG202 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It's mostly about how lexicalized the terms are, and not about relevancy. For example, there are multiple political parties identified as Democratic Party throughout the world, and as a result, the name has become generalized. But the same is not true of European Union, etc. etc. Furthermore, you said South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation isn’t as important as the other terms you mentioned. Therefore this clearly indicates that you yourself don’t have any specific criterion for which international organizations to be included. You were simply relying on ‘other major dictionaries’. But we as the largest lexicographic project must make our own specific critera for inclusion of these terms. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 05:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore this clearly indicates that you yourself don’t have any specific criterion for which international organizations to be included." I'm not the one coming up with the proposal. I'm fine with what we currently do and deal with each one on a case-by-case basis with consensus. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation is not a current entry, as I stated, so I don't have a formed opinion on it. AG202 (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You can basically exclude any “organization” governed by public law, as it is not just arbitrarily founded by private persons. This would be somewhat casuistically formulated, to be especially broad and neutral towards different legal systems: “The exclusion does not apply to countries, states [again this is both not a difference when translated], municipalities, and other territorial corporations [Gebietskörperschaften] and their organs, organized governmental and administrative cooperations [Verwaltungsgemeinschaften, including the things on w:de:Gemeindeverband], statutory corporations, institutions and agencies.” It would exclude their dependent subdivisions like Bundesservice Telekommunikation (little need to translate if it barely even exists!), even ministries as opposed to the government herself as an organ of a country or state, and the commercial companies [wirtschaftliche Unternehmen] of the municipalities, like Stadtwerke Potsdam.

Armed forces and their branches would be included again since there is a limited number thereof and they should be translated, they were hardly captured anyway by the term “organization”, and we may well treat soldiers differently from civilians, quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. So you see, the matter is complicated enough for your current formulations to be unworkable—“some” is not enough. Fay Freak (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"by dint of their zero lexical worth"

As a native English speaker: is someone going to translate this vote into English for me? Thanks. Equinox ◑ 05:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my bad English skills. You can ask @Fay Freak for help with translation. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 05:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I loled. Equinox ◑ 05:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Translations

While I understand where the proposers are coming from (yes, these organizations are encyclopedic), I may have changed my own mind on this general matter in recent times mainly because of translations. Currently, there doesn't seem to be a place on the internet where I could look up what the European Union is called in various languages (no, the Wikis / Wikidata don't count, they're riddled with protologisms, we have superior attestation criteria). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, as a speaker of an LDL, while my language does have a Wiki, it doesn't take it as its job to record all regional variants of these organization names. And what about humorous alt-spellings?

• 2003 May 10, Benny Blomberg, “LIVE: An neüa @Ritter!!”, in alt.stupid‎^[1] (Usenet):

  Was söll i mit ama Griinpiis?
  *schickt de Greenpeace zrugg zum @Kai*

  (please add an English translation of this quotation)

Pinging @AG202 as this might also be a relevant point in regard to Yoruba. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If you know the significance of the European Union for the legal systems, economies or general prosperity of its member states, it is absurd without asking to exclude it, as well as excluding the name of any state, which many here will agree with without difficulty, and the same goes for the Council of Europe, but only a minority even knows the difference (8 translations there, I loled), there you see how there are many areas where significance is conspicuous but to experts. One must be careful not to introduce a popularity bias into the inclusion criteria. Fay Freak (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: Humorous variants aren’t full org names. They’re more like nicknames. Or whatever, but not the official name: hence the proposal doesn’t apply to them. Compare North Atlantic Terrorist Organization for a derogatory nickname. As regards translations, I excluded European Union because letting its inclusion will pave the way for all other international org names — and this will deal a blow to the proposal itself. Maybe we can explore different ways to add such translations. Either by having translation-only entries for full org names where lexicalized translations would be allowed (such as the translations of European Union in the languages spoken in the member states, observer states, as well as surrounding states). Or by having an appendix page dedicated to these translations. Or by even including the full org name translations at EU. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And how do you distinguish the European Union from a federal state? The answer is, you can’t. There have been law professors writing that of course it is a state, like the Republic of India, although it is common to assume the criterion that only that which has competence-competence is a state so the European Union isn’t due to the principle of conferral, which is quite a detail to frame the inclusion criteria around. I don’t know why we should not pave the way for all these organizations, apparently we are not on the same page. The intended goal or scope of this voting plan is very shallow. If the goal is not to look stupid because of including organization names like your local pigeon fancier club then this threshold is by far not yet reached by including Arab League, and it is sore misguided and potentially insulting to compare terms for enterprises of this scope to it or to equate them just because they “pave the way” to it—they pave ways for many things. Fay Freak (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 00:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

States like India and Russia are successor states of British India and the Soviet Union respectively. Is the European Union a successor state of any European empire? The EU is an international organization, like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and countless others. These full names are encyclopedic and don’t merit entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 01:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī On what grounds do you argue that they're "encyclopedic"? From what little you've said in that regard, it seems that the criteria you're using would equally-well exclude all proper nouns (save those that are names of places or celestial bodies, which are explicitly included). All you've done is to claim that names of organizations are "nonlexicographical" and "encyclopedic" without providing a shred of evidence to support your contentions. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 08:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He is merely dropping buzzwords, and this with poor consistency. At one place he opines that “confederations formed of various tribes/peoples (and not modern countries) are comparable to states/polities, not organizations.” Here he fails to compare the European Union to a state/polity, the definition of one the EU much more narrowly dodges, if at all. I heartly recommend Inqilābi to read one or two books about constitutional law, Staatsrechtslehre, administrative law, and of course the functioning of the European Union. The definitions will seem much more entangled, like the definition of a new bodybuilder who begins to see various muscles, which fat people fail to conceptualize. As with an individual, we prefer to the learn the anatomy of society before we dissect it, and even then we have to make it comprehensible to others. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t really need to learn anything about law or the functioning of the EU. For the record, we already have the entry EU, and this proposal seeks to delete the entry European Union for reasons stated manifold times. Arab League will be kept because it’s a clipping of it’s official name League of Arab States. As a dictionary, we must needs prune the project of encyclopedic/nonlexicalized entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"for reasons stated manifold times" - actually, @Inqilābī, you have yet to provide a single explanation of why you consider these entries "encyclopedic" or "nonlexicalized". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Come on Inqilābī, you know this is bad press if we delete European Union and we can’t do that – at least I hope that you know. And yes, what you call reasons is very thin. Some raw analogies about Empires and it paving the way to worse entries, which does not convince us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By the way with your invented formal rule a fortiori we have to include European Council not because it is a clipping of Council of the European Union but because it is something entirely different, both additionally unrelated to the Council of Europe—and if we have to keep these then there is no way not to have the larger European Union. Fay Freak (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A criteria for inclusion regarding full org names should apply consistently to all terms. We don’t have South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, South East Asia Treaty Organization, etc., etc., and North Atlantic Treaty Organization got recently deleted. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if the criteria you have imagined here are consistent – at least they are bare unintuitive. Though now I recognize that this is the fault of the previous behaviour of the whole community: note that it is not outside the realm of possibility that some or most of the deleted entries may be recreated if this is according to new rules that we have accepted for clarity. Fay Freak (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Considering that you are fine with including initialisms, humorous alterations, alt spellings, dialectal variations and translations, wouldn't it be much easier if we just had one central hub from which all these things can be reached?

As far as I can tell, your proposal makes the dictionary a lot less "discoverable". Once the RFV for sense 2 in NATO has failed, there is going to be no article that links to North Atlantic Terrorist Organization. If we still had North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it would just be listed as a synonym thereof. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: We already use the abbreviation entries for keeping translations. And the definitions can be either the abbreviated form or the Wikipedia link, depending upon the case. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Fytcha: We can still include the nonlexicographical translation of the proper noun in the entries, as in কেকেকে or রবীন্দ্রনাথ. Note that dialectical or archaic variations of full org names will also be deleted according the vote. So, if you want to have a full list of all full org names in the dictionary, we can have appendices for them. Also, I’m still in favour of creating citations pages for full org names. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Org names originating as shortforms

How would the proposed policy handle cases where what originated as a shortform is now the full name of the organization, such as GLAAD? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 22:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: Pseudo-acronyms are included as entries. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There should probably be a note to this effect added into the proposed policy (which currently makes no mention of pseudo-acronyms). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: The proposed text says: ‘[A]ll shortenings of full organization names […] are allowed as entries.’ And CAT:English pseudo-acronyms is a subcategory of CAT:English shortenings. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Whoop whoop pull up: I don’t think this is a problem. Acronyms and abbreviations generally merit inclusion in their own right, and there certainly is no requirement that for every such entry the unabbreviated term must also have its own entry in the Wiktionary. It is sufficient to link to Wikipedia in such cases. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Org names that aren't what they seem

What about organizations whose names, when interpreted literally, don't accurately describe their purpose?

The example I have in mind is the Massachusetts General Court, which is not a court in the sense of adjudicating legal disputes, but rather the state legislature. Would this be within the bounds of CFI? (Is it currently?) 98.170.164.88 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s still too encyclopedic to be included in the dictionary. Although there’s no CFI section about organizations yet (and there will not be any soon coz the vote is gonna fail), Massachusetts General Court will likely fail RFD. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: have you considered pausing and rethinking the vote, based on the feedback that has been given? — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Am I allowed to stop a vote halfway? And of course, we need an improved version of this vote, probably one with multiple options so that at least the org names that everyone deem encyclopedic can be deleted from the project. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I don't see why a vote can't be withdrawn by its proposer for further consideration. But before restarting the vote, perhaps have a further discussion on the talk page here or at the Beer Parlour about what proposal(s) might gain consensus. My takeaway from the comments is that editors would like to see some criteria for determining which organizations should have Wiktionary entries and which ones should not. It's not enough just to say "the United Nations and the European Union are allowed, but no others". — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a vote-creator should have the ability to withdraw or amend his vote in midstream. Something similar was recently done for the derogatory-terms vote too. But why, just seven months ago, was this opportunity denied to me with the deleter-role vote? (See here and here). We really need consistent standards on these things, as well as an authority which can apply these standards in a uniform manner. Imetsia (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)