Talk:KakaoTalk

RFD discussion: January–June 2023
WT:BRAND. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in RFD: the requirements of WT:BRAND are requirements on existence of certain kinds of quotations. Entry created by ; entry edited without RFD nomination by, and . In terms of general/universal lexicography (word documentation), the entry has valid lexicographical content. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you mean you are against WT:BRAND? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Dan is saying that WT:BRAND is a criterion to test quotations so this should be handled at RFV rather than RFD. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. To explicitly itemize: 1) RFD is inapplicable; WT:BRAND-related deletions are for RFV. 2) WT:BRAND does not trace to any credible arguments supporting it as a rationale, and therefore, WT:BRAND is not supported by Wikipedia-consensus, where Wikipedia-consensus is the concept of consensus as understood by Wikipedia. 2.1) Wiktionary ought to undergo a cultural change in which Wiktionary-consensus becomes more like Wikipedia-consensus, strongly incorporating the element of the strength of arguments, and in particular, those who make no pretense of making arguments ought to be dismissed as decision-making participants. 2.2) some steps toward 2.1 were already taken, e.g. in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes, linked from WT:VPRFD. Ironically, it was me who argued that consensus has to be determined numerically, not based on the strength of the argument. In part, I was wrong: at a minimum, those who make no pretense to make arguments (e.g. by saying "Delete" with no rationale) can be dismissed, and lack of argument is easy to deterministically/algorithmically and objectively determine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording of WT:BRAND is supported by the following votes. A careful reader will note that vote 3 explicitly approves the full text of the section:
 * Votes/pl-2007-08/Brand names of products 2
 * Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product
 * Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2
 * Because these were formal votes, the result of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes is completely irrelevant.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. However, the formal vote that decided that formal votes ought to completely dismiss the strength of the argument (which I opposed) did not provide any credible arguments for doing so. Therefore, the meta-vote itself fails to comply with Wikipedia consensus process, and in so far as the principle of the strength of the argument is taken seriously, is illegitimate. Those who want to push the strength of the argument principle can do so, in so far as that reveals their true and free will and their being members of the rational universe in which mere numbers of very stupid or inarticulate people supporting something do not count. Incidentally, Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 is a perfect example of a gross violation of Wikipedia-consensus process: the voters make no pretense of making any arguments at all. On the strength of the argument principle, the conduct of that vote participants is unacceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes. You seem to be trying to argue that anyone who supports closing discussions based on the strength of argument should, by extension, want to ignore any formal votes which don't meet that standard; ignoring the fact that those votes still passed, whether we wanted them to or not.
 * In any event, we can't start nullifying votes retroactively by changing the rules on how they should have been decided many years later. Sorry. Theknightwho (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is exactly that 2019 vote that I referred to above as "meta-vote", and about which I pointed out that it fails to comply with Wikipedia-consensus process by its disregard of the strength of the argument principle and that, from the standpoint of the strength of the argument, is illegitimate. Wiktionary editors do in fact have the option of rejecting the results of votes that fail to comply with Wikipedia-consensus process; whether they ought to take that option is another matter, but they do have the option or they can reject such votes as illegitimate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As for "sorry", internal emotional states of discussion participants have no logical bearing on correctness, plausibility, verifiability, falsifiability, or strength of arguments. Put differently, such an internal state is irrelevant and does not need to be revealed as part of a RFD discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes reminds me of the time when I was working on FreeMind, the free-as-in-freedom mind mapping software, and one of the users in our fora posted to the effect that FreeMind is a rare sign of the presence of the intelligence on the planet. In a kind of analogy, the vote shows that there is some rare presence of intelligence and Wikipedia-consensus spirit in the English Wiktionary, and it belongs to me, not to the other vote participants. That is an arrogant thing to say of oneself, but the objective evidence in that vote is very clear in that regard. It is the inferior behavior of the great majority of the English Wiktionary editors that makes me arrogant, comparing myself to what is arguably much more inferior than the general Wikipedia editor, who necessarily respects the strength of the argument principle in Wikipedia Requests for comments. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They can reject such votes by passing a vote which overturns them. This just seems to be a (particularly tortured, even for you) way of arguing that we should ignore consensus that you don’t like. Theknightwho (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors do have the option to ignore numerical-consensus as an opinion of those who do not even pretend to have anything resembling an argument and to insist on Wikipedia-consensus as the only acceptable process on wiki. That is a fact; they do have the option, whether they ought to take it or not. (I am repeating myself since there is not much else I can say to the above pseudo-argument. Maybe I should say nothing and leave it to the reader.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that the only way they can exercise that option is by passing a vote overturning current policy. It's not a pseudo-argument just because you don't like the fact that certain policy exists. I suggest you stop conflating your personal feelings with objective fact, because it's an absolutely typical move of yours to start claiming that people aren't making arguments when you don't have an adequate response. Theknightwho (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly untrue, as per things I said. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you consider starting a BP discussion as nullifying WT:BRAND is such a big deal? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In BP, the stupid and/or dishonest people who supported WT:BRAND without a proper rationale/strength of argument would shoot my proposal down like a breeze, consistent with their long-term problematic behavior. In recent discussions on various subjects, editors freely revealed themselves as free of anything resembling a strong argument, in a completely unashamed way. But I do not entirely give up on my fellow co-humans or co-persons or Mitmenschen or whatever they really are, in their ultimate unknowable being. Maybe BP would be worth a try. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I thought a RFV naturally becomes RFD if an entry has its only sense RFVed. No? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference, ... we've had plenty of single-sense RFV's, such as sleepwell ... it does seem to me that RFV would make more sense since a brandname has a pretty clear-cut definition. Nobodys debating whether KakaoTalk exists ... I dont know how to explain it, but .... to keep a brand name in the dictionary, we want to see that it's used as a *word*, not just a name. — Soap — 21:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Brand names are words or word sequences, just like all proper names. That is obvious, and the repeated claims to the contrary are cases of pathetic lying or pretending to be very stupid. The obvious can be articulated: brand names have pronunciation, etymology, inflection (not so much in English but e.g. in Czech), part of speech, referents (like other proper names), etc. Put differently, brand names are words or word sequences by duck test: that which has all signs or characteristics or behaviors of a word is a word. But maybe I, a non-expert, am wrong and there are authorities explaining that this reasoning is incorrect. If so, it should be possible to trace the statement that some brand names are not words or word sequences to authoritative sources; I would ask those who support that statement to do so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RFD deals with deletion of entries "for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested" as it says at the top of the page. RFV handles attestation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RFD deals with deletion of entries "for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested" as it says at the top of the page. RFV handles attestation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For some context, KakaoTalk (aka Kakao or KaTalk) in South Korea is the primary messaging tool, it's probably much more common than Facebook, Skype, Twitter or Instagram for which we have entries. It's also common with anyone who has to communicated with Koreans, since many people in South Korea don't even have any account on other platforms or don't care about them.
 * From the Web: "According to Kakao Corp, in Q3 2022, there were 53.5 million active users worldwide and more than 47.6 million were based in South Korea." Or "It is found on more than 90 percent of phones in South Korea." --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Send to RFV. AG202 (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What sort of verification was required for Facebook, Twitter, Skype, etc.? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominally, Facebook, Twitter, etc. need to meet WT:BRAND. However, editors have the option to treat WT:BRAND as invalid given its failure to comply with the Wikipedia-consensus process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2 was referred to above as establishing that the WT:BRAND rules were established in full conformance to our (Wiktionary’s) consensus process. We are not Wikipedia. The discussion took place on the talk pages. I do not understand the claim that editors have the option to treat this as "invalid". --Lambiam 11:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Its possible that they were such obvious non-candidates for RFV that nobody's bothered to send them there. Im sure we could easily find the required three citations using Facebook as a common noun outside the context of Facebook, and likewise for Twitter. Im not as familiar with Skype but Im sure that sooooooomewhere we could scrape up three cites and probably a lot more.  KakaoTalk may be more  difficult to support if its primary language is not English. — Soap — 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Skype would be trivially easy to cite as a verb. Up until the pandemic, it was still being used as the generic word for video calling (at least in the UK). Theknightwho (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RFV issue. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Dan Polansky seems to suggest that the fact that I edited the entry means I approve of it. No way! Sometimes I'm too busy to RFV/RFD, or feel sadly sure it would pass. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to RFV (though that would be pointless as it would clearly pass in any case if we moved it). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WT:BRAND. (In the unlikely case that someone manages to find three CFI-conforming uses of the name in a context that does not reveal it is a messaging app, the entry can easily be recreated.) --Lambiam 12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete on the ground that WT:BRAND has not been satisfied, as Lambiam has expressed it. If it is felt that WT:BRAND should be modified in some way, then a formal vote should be started in line with Voting policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * RFD failed - to delete Zemely Nashka (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)