Talk:Curiosity

Opportunity
Is this seriously dictionary material? -- Liliana • 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW - Curiosity may be as worthy as dictionary material as Opportunity and Spirit I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point - I added those two to this discussion as well. -- Liliana • 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. But WT:CFI lets us debate each instance of such things, all as a result of Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The craft is named from the word, because it is hoped to embody certain properties of the word &mdash; like calling a child Grace. We don't have entries for individual people called Grace, and IMO should not for individual vehicles. Drbogdan points out that we do have Opportunity and Spirit; we also have Titanic and Apollo; and (better known than some of these, but fictional) Talk:Enterprise failed. IMO delete all. Equinox ◑ 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How is this different from my cat being called Gatto? The difference is cultural not lexical, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems that Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, Apollo and Titanic may all be comparable (ie, all names of world-famous vehicles of notable real-world historical significance) - but Grace and Gatto may not be "*as* analogous"? - apples and oranges (*maybe*?) - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just wondering - should the Mayflower (and the like) also be included? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Words like and  should be included because they have entered the lexicon (in these cases, as epitomes of major accidents, as used in comparisons.) This is not the case with Curiosity, Spirit and Opportunity. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary Pages for the Challenger (ie, the space shuttle Challenger) and the Hindenburg, having major accidents, should be created? - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You could create them, and if they were RFDed I would oppose deletion, but I doubt that everyone will agree. — Ungoliant (Falai)
 * ✅ - hopefully the newly created pages (Challenger and Hindenburg) will last a long time - or at least as long as the Titanic, Columbia and Mayflower pages? - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hindenburg is used as an approximate synonym for disaster. I'm not so sure about Challenger. Above you mentioned "notable real-world historical significance". That's valid for an encyclopedia, but not for a dictionary ("notable", especially, points to confusion between Wikipedia and Wiktionary standards). The term itself is what we focus on, not the thing it refers to. Unless the term has some meaning beyond just a reference to a specific thing- no matter how famous or important- it doesn't belong in a dictionary. In other words, we answer the question "what does 'Curiosity' mean?", not "what is Curiosity, and what's important about it"? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Chuck Entz - Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - in terms of Curiosity - to some (maybe many these days) Curiosity may actually mean a "robot on Mars" - and may be synonymous with "space exploration" - might this make the Curiosity term dictionary worthy? - rather than only encyclopedic material alone? - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you show any evidence that Curiosity might be a generic term for a Mars robot? It seems incredibly unlikely. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right about this - I was thinking that, in casual conversations these days, the word Curiosity seems to bring to mind "Mars robot" - without further explanation - how widespread this may be - or how widespread it needs to be - may be an issue of course - thanks for your comment - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "Unless the term has some meaning beyond just a reference to a specific thing- no matter how famous or important- it doesn't belong in a dictionary.": That is incorrect. There is no such requirement on proper name entries in Wiktionary. We do keep place names and star names, among others, even when they only refer to a specific thing: the place or the star. Since what it says in WT:CFI, you can make it your personal policy that an included proper name has to refer to something other than the direct referent, and vote accordingly, but that is not a Wiktionary policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My test for these is metaphorical usage, which Apollo, Titanic, Hindenburg, and Mayflower all pass. For instance, the Concord was "commonly called the Mayflower of the Germans." This may be difficult to find for the listed terms because of the commonness of the words, but tentatively I would say delete Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity. It doesn't look good for Challenger and Columbia either. DAVilla 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The metaphorical/allusive usage test is a good one, if it could be operationalized and rendered objective and replicable. Allusions might be a worthy expansion of Wiktionary's coverage. We already have many of them. For example, we should have George Washington, because of the abundant use of "the George Washington of his country/nation/people". All sorts of historical figures, especially classical ones, are used for allusive reasons in taxonomic names, especially genera. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Last call for comments before I close these as deleted. bd2412 T 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain. What prevents me from voting keep is that these proper names are capitalized versions of common nouns. All three names are names of Mars exploration rovers, individual vehicles. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 13:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)