Talk:Mother Teresa

RFD discussion: April 2022
Rfd-sense (proper noun). Official name of a person (given by Church), thus unsuitable for inclusion as an individual. Compare Mahatma Gandhi, which is partially a bestowed name. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  16:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Transferred to etymology per precedents. See the RFV discussion as well. (Also note that the entry originally didn’t have the proper noun sense.) ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  19:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * A one-day deletion discussion with 1 participant is nothing like consensus and proper RFD process. And "precedent" is equivocal, per e.g. Robin Hood. I have restored the proper noun sense as deleted out of process; you still need a proper RFD-sense with proper discussion period even if you think you have "precedent" especially if the deletion is not driven by statutory policy WT:CFI. The sense was added in in 2011. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2022
Rfv-sense: a person who is completely unselfish to the point of being saintly. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone RfVed the proper noun sense. Have you challenged the other sense without putting a tag for a reason? DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be an expression in "widespread use". DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously delete the proper noun. Doing "good work" doesn't make you lexical. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing as a clear RFV-pass. The RFD for the proper noun sense can be handled there. Theknightwho (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow! This is not a clear pass at all! Equinox ◑ 18:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The noun sense is, which is what this was about. There are 8 cites. Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The Proper noun section should be RfDed. The person is relevant to the etymology. DCDuring (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Mother Theresa
Is this form attested as a common noun? If it be only proper noun, then it could be speedied. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  20:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks to be a common misspelling for the common noun form as well from Google Books, but I don't want to spend the time actually doing the cites. Theknightwho (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed for this orthography too. This, that and the other (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Need of a noun sense
We don't need a noun sense; just change "A nun who worked among the poor for many decades in India" to "A nun who worked among the poor for many decades in India, noted for being completely unselfish to the point of being saintly" and we're done. This gives a method for defining individuals who are used in a non-literal sense; the non-literal uses still refer to the particular individual even if they pick some notable properties of the individual for the use. Dan Polansky (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August–December 2022
Rfd-sense: A nun who worked among the poor for many decades in India.

This was tagged for RFD but never properly discussed, as per Talk:Mother Teresa.

My position is Keep: the literal sense is the primary meaning of the term, and nothing is improved by removing it; and per WT:LEMMING:. M-W has a literal sense, and why not. We have many terms with senses for specific individuals, in Category:en:Individuals. WT:NSE leaves us discretion for this case. Included multi-word names include Jesus Christ, Alexander the Great, Darwin's Bulldog, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Magdalene, Joan of Arc, and Robin Hood. LEMMING prevents overflood with these kinds of entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Undelete - this was removed as encyclopaedic, but I honestly don't understand why. It doesn't go into any detail on who Mother Teresa is, and it's not derivable from the sum of its parts - it just points out that the term refers to her. This also goes for the equivalent terms in other languages which were deleted at the same time, too. The "precedent" referred to in th discussion was the user's own nomination of those other terms, from memory. Theknightwho (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note our policy on encyclopaedic content: 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. Theknightwho (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (No need to undelete, just keep: I have restored the proper noun sense already since it was deleted out of process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC))
 * It's "de jure" deleted - or some people might think it is. My point is clear, in any event. 18:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Theknightwho (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of process removal is not "de jure" by my lights. We cannot let out of process removal rule over the present RFD; since inclusion of individuals is controversial, this may end up in being no consensus either way, and then it matters what the status quo is and what is not. On account of which I note that the sense was added in 2011 in . --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear violation of NSE. DP is talking complete nonsense again, and is also restoring entries deleted via RFD in bad faith (example 1, example 2). &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 18:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please quote specific text of WT:NSE that this is violating. The only one that comes to mind is this: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney"; and that does not apply since neither a family name nor a patronymic is at stake. I am not acting in bad faith in undoing improperly closed RFD discussions and I have started a Beer parlour discussion to see what people think: Beer parlour/2022/August. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at our criteria for inclusion, I don’t think there is currently a specific rule that forbids an entry like “Mother Teresa”. (The “Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia” section seems aimed at the contents of definitions, not at entries themselves.) Nonetheless, it is worth having a Beer Parlour discussion followed by a formal vote about whether editors think the literal names of individual persons (or animals) consisting of a title and a name (for example, “Dame Edna”, “Dr Oz”, “King John”, “Mother Teresa”, “Mr Ed”, “Pope Francis”, and “Saint Paul”) should be allowed as entries. The relationship between such terms and our policy on nicknames will also need to be considered. Figurative and idiomatic senses should of course be included. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Those are all common titles. This is not. Theknightwho (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky You can't argue for common practice on one thread while demanding someone quote policy here. Can you just stop being so argumentative for once, and actually participate cooperatively? Theknightwho (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you on about? He said the term violates X, I am asking what part of X since it does not. Am I now forbidden from discussing policies and their wordings? And the post I am responding to is not even using common practice as an argument. I am using both policies and common practice as arguments, but I do not let common practice override a voted-on policy, only complement it. "Stop being so argumentative": start with yourself? Yes, I am often engaging in detailed and thus long argumentation; that is the spirit of argument-based discussion. I find the pithy posts by some other people to be so short and dismissive as to be rude; no attempt to explain, often accompanied by blatant falsities easily refuted by evidence to the point of being lying, which is uncivil to be called out for what it is. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You frequently manage to use a lot of words to say very little. This is one of those times, because almost none of it was pertinent to the point I actually made. Theknightwho (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop being rude. If you are unable to engage with the substance of what is being said, disengage. If you do not want to try to explain your point in different words so I can understand it, stay silent: that is fine. If someone says X violates Y, I can ask what part of Y, and that is fine; I rest my case. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't see this (or e.g. Chairman Mao or Saint Marinus or Pope Francis or King Richard) as dictionary material, like we also don't include e.g. The Lion Sleeps Tonight or Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. When there's a figurative sense, as here, the original/literal referent can be mentioned in the etymology. - -sche (discuss) 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think definitely does deserve an entry. Names for people are, at the very least, not fictional. Theknightwho (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. However, it seems WT:CFI may need to be updated to clearly reflect this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sgconlaw: If I were you, I would vote "delete": WT:NSE is designed to rely on editors in RFD acting as quasi-legislators for the cases for which it does not provide specific rules. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? What about, say, President Obama or Prime Minister Blair? It's all just title + name; I'd say it's even less idiomatic than the media titles I named, since Chairman Mao is a Chairman with the surname Mao, but what An Anthropologist on Mars is about is not deducible from its parts (it's a nonfictional account of several medical case histories, not of an anthropologist on Mars). - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It is questionable that the figurative sense exists as a separate sense. One can argue that the figurative uses are uses of the proper noun sense, not uses of a new sense. I know of no dictionary that features a figurative sense for "Mother Teresa". It would be better to have a single proper noun sense of the form "Specific entity, noted for characteristics X, Y, and Z". I would argue that the existence of figurative uses is alone a good reason to have a literal sense: this literal sense covers most uses of a term that we include, and it seems weird to include the much rarer uses of a term while excluding its most common uses. This consideration differentiates "Mother Teresa" from most of the other items listed above. Professional lexicographers of English dictionaries do see this as dictionary material, as shown. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think ’s approach is more appropriate: keep any figurative meaning, but refer to the literal meaning in the etymology section. This is more analogous with how we deal with, for example, eponymous adjectives (though of course the situations are not identical). Having an entry for Dickensian should not mean we include an entry for Charles Dickens as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Dickensian is from Dickens and we do have Charles Dickens as a sense there. For the record, I just readded the sense to Dickens after it was removed without RFD-sense. And this is not just Dickens; we have a host of individuals in their surname entries and their having a derived adjective seems to be a good indicator we should have them; just make a random check in CAT:en:Individuals, and see; 2) Etymology is for origins, definition lines are for meanings. To have proper names not contain sense lines for their most common meanings seems just bizarre to me. The reader can go to Wikipedia, sure, and notice the etymology, but it is no less bizarre. The only objective of the removal seems to be to remove as many person sense lines as possible, even when it makes little sense from usability perspective and even when this is not the practice of professional lexicographers. Some people here are obviously much smarter than the profis. This is all the more puzzling given how many geographic names are allowed by WT:CFI and how many specific places are being listed as dedicated senses in our place names; the senses for individual people do not even increase the number of entries, they just make the entries with figurative senses look a little less bizarre. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not have a notability criterion, so the existence of a derived adjective is not an indication that the person it comes from deserves inclusion as a sense. Theknightwho (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a policy but it is an indication to me, and WT:NSE allows me to use that as an indication. And it is not about notability, merely about the linguistic properties of the derived adjective. I saw some people agree with the notion that the derived adjective is a good indicator, but this never made it into a policy. One may disagree and that is fine, but the point Sgconlaw made was that we do not have Charles Dickens, whereas we in fact do have the person sense in Dickens, which some dislike. Since we do not have Mother Theresian, the point is probably an aside anyway: Charles Dickens did not fail RFD for Dickens entry yet and that's for sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still a notability argument. Theknightwho (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Argument by contradiction, I guess; there was a funny Monty Python scene on that. The existence of a derived adjective is not a notability argument: he who applies the derived-adjective rule does not investigate whether X is notable but only whether X is referenced on the definition line of the derived adjective. The criteria for what is notable and what is not are not known and considered by the investigator and applicant. And thus "we do not have a notability criterion" does not matter; we don't need these criteria. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you are arguing that the existence of the derived term modifies the meaning of the original one, then there is no reason why we should modify the original term's definition simply because a derived term exists.
 * Whether or not you admit it, it's a notability argument on the basis that the existence of a derived term makes it notable enough to include, seemingly because you think it's convenient to users. That is what etymology sections are for, though, so it's completely unnecessary. Theknightwho (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dickens's etymology will not cover Charles Dickens, so I don't understand the etymology business. Since my argument does not use the word "notable", my argument can only be described as notability by reading into it something that it does not invoke. One could argue that the notion of notability is invoked without being named. Maybe so, but then the notability is not a bad thing: one simply observes that the term Dickens is out of context going automatically to be understood as referring to Charles Dickens, which has to do with his notability. If this is accepted, our not having "notability" rule does not matter since it is already admitted that we do not have a rule covering the derived-adjective principle either. The neat thing about the derived-adjective rule is that it does not require any decision procedure for what is notable and what is not, is easy to apply and administer and is likely to lead to inclusion of people who are going to be invoked out of context by their surnames, a good thing from linguistic perspective: one may argue that the most notable referent has become as much of a meaning of the word as the generic "surname" sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that should have the sense "Charles Dickens" due to the existence of the term . I am arguing that that is not necessary, because that is the purpose of the etymology section of Dickensian.
 * I strongly oppose your "derived adjective rule", because it means that senses are added to original terms based on the existence of derived terms, which is the wrong way around.
 * On a side note - please stop with this kind of inane, dishonest drivel: Since my argument does not use the word "notable", my argument can only be described as notability by reading into it something that it does not invoke. It's like talking to a fourth-rate politician. Theknightwho (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose your "derived adjective rule", because it means that senses are added to original terms based on the existence of derived terms, which is the wrong way around.
 * On a side note - please stop with this kind of inane, dishonest drivel: Since my argument does not use the word "notable", my argument can only be described as notability by reading into it something that it does not invoke. It's like talking to a fourth-rate politician. Theknightwho (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On a side note - please stop with this kind of inane, dishonest drivel: Since my argument does not use the word "notable", my argument can only be described as notability by reading into it something that it does not invoke. It's like talking to a fourth-rate politician. Theknightwho (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WT:LEMMING at the very least. A case could be made based on notability as we clearly have a de facto notability exception to the standard CFI, though not a de jure one. How else do we explain the existence of the sense that refers to the author Charles Dickens at Dickens or the Robin Hood entry? After all there are other people with the surname ‘Dickens’ and other people with both ‘Robin’ as a Christian name and ‘Hood’ as a surname (and other nuns given the name ‘Teresa’ by their mothers superior). Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well can be explained by the fact that Dan just re-added it (and is trying to introduce a new CFI), so that doesn't really count.  is from folklore - we certainly don't know if it was his personal name or not, and in fact it probably wasn't. Theknightwho (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Charles Dickens was added in in 2005 and never failed a RFD per Talk:Dickens. More examples include philosophers (Plato), poets (Keats), politicians (Churchill), writers (Emerson), playwrights (Shakespeare), composers (Chopin), explorers (Cook) and scientists (Darwin). Many more examples can be found in CAT:en:Individuals. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me note that this is not to override CFI but to complement it. WT:NSE says "A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which." Thus, RFD participants need to figure out their own inclusion criteria that are not codified as policy. They have no other option. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Overlordnat1 LEMMING is going to be a tricky precedent, since there are biographical dictionaries out there (including M-W, which includes their biographical dictionary entries in the online results). If we want to apply LEMMING to proper nouns we might have to discuss what to do about such dictionaries. - TheDaveRoss  13:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD kept : 3 keeps, 3 deletes. Two months have passed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am re-opening this on the basis that you're making the false claim that a 2/3 supermajority is required for deletion (as you have done for several other discussions that you've also just closed). Given that that is not a requirement for deletion, it is not a legitimate reason to close the discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-closing this as RFD kept; whatever the "numerical" requirement may be, a 3-3 effective tie is clearly not a consensus for deletion. The closer did not state that a 2/3 supermajority is required here, but consensus to delete does require a consensus, which we ourselves define as "general agreement", which would not be reflected in something like a mere two-to-one majority. bd2412 T 03:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I should maybe have given more of a justification for my delete vote. "Mother" simply means that she was a superior in her religious congregation. It doesn't have any special idiomatic meaning. There have been hundreds of "Mother Teresas" throughout history; it just so happens that this one was famous. Linguistically, though, it's just "Mother" [religious title] + "Teresa" [religious name] and thus the information on the particular person should be relegated to an etymology. There's absolutely nothing more idiomatic about this than about . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)