Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Relaxing CFI for geographic names

RFV?

So does this mean that place-name entries without the required information would get listed at WT:RFV to see if it can be provided? —Ruakh_TALK 14:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that listing in RFV would not be exactly it, as the request would not really be one for attestation. How the process would look I am not sure; they could be sent to RFD, or they could be tagged in the way recently used by msh210. The problem was not with the process of tagging per se but with which entries get tagged. If the vote passes, there should be an analogue to "clearly in widespread use", along the lines of "clearly can have pronunciation and already has gender". --Dan Polansky 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

what's uninclusible

I'm trying to think of things that might not be inclusible under the requirement proposed here. Every place name in a spoken language can have pronunciation added, and if we accept "production details" (or whatever we've been calling them) for sign-language entries as the equivalent of pronunciations, then every place name in any language can have pronunciation added. And every place name that's one word can have etymology added to meet the CFI. In many, many languages, each place name has gender, which can be added. So essentially the only place names that might possibly not meet the requirement proposed by this vote are multi-word ones in languages in which place names have no gender. For English, there'll be a bunch of these, as many two-word names won't have translations. (But still, only two-or-more-word names will not be inclusible.) But for foreign languages, there'll be very, very, very few place names not inclusible, as most will have pronunciation and either translation into English or etymology. This vote is very nearly proposing dropping the five requirements altogether.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That is true. The requirements do come rather close to not being there. Furthermore, the requirements discriminate against English for its having no gender and inflection. Their advantage is that they are phrased in terms of ability to carry useful lexicographical information. Of course, there is still the requirement of attestability.

This disadvantage of much-inclusiveness (if seen as a disadvantage) has been there all along. The only difference is whether the entries are includable now with not much effort, and whether they are includable eventually with significant effort. --Dan Polansky 15:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)