Wiktionary:Unresolved issues/Names of specific entities

Previous Discussions: Beer_parlour_archive/2007/April

Trademark names
We need a policy for trademarks. If we have one, I can't find it (and it should be at Trademarks). I think that widely know trademark names should be included if they can be used metaphorically (e.g. Cadillac), descriptively (Mark wears a Rolex and drives a Lexus, whereas Joe wears a Timex and drives a Honda), if the mark is approaching genericism (Kleenex, Xerox), or if the mark is a specific use of word that would otherwise be in the dictionary anyway (Bounty for paper towels, Crest for toothpaste, Janus for mutual funds). I'm putting together a listing of the most widely known brand names at User:BD2412/brand names.

Also, I've noticed that from time to time folks need to look up trademark registrations here, so I'm going to provide some quick tips on how to do this.
 * 1. Go to the United States Patent and Trademark Office trademark main page.
 * 2. Near the top of the right-hand column, click [Search].
 * 3. I recommend the Free Form Search. Type in the word you're looking for followed by [comb] and you'll get a combination of searches for the word alone, with punctuation, or as part of a phrase. Also, it often helps to add "and live[ld]" to a search, as this will limit it to live marks and filter out marks no longer registered.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of this, but disagree with your view that the Bounty and Crest and Janus trademarks should be included just because bounty and crest are words and Janus is a dictionary-worthy proper noun. (Maybe they should be included anyway, but if we develop criteria for inclusion of trademarks, I think they should apply regardless of whether the trademark represents its own entry, or simply an additional sense in an existing entry.) —RuakhTALK 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that trademarks that incorporate a common word for an uncommon purpose (e.g. Apple) merit a one-line entry because the word is already in the dictionary, and the trademark definition is a legitimate alternative definition of a word for which we are trying to give complete information. That said, I think such instances should be limited to trademarks that can be demonstrated by reference to a source such as a trade journal to be very widely known and very strong. bd2412 T 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with this (sorry bd2412, I just seem to keep picking fights with you, nothing personal :-)). Certainly we should have entries for bandaid (or is it band-aid?) and xerox, because they're used in an idiomatic sense, not necessarily related to the brand itself, perhaps rolex as well.  But, my opinion is that they should not merit entries until they can be put in non-capitals, as xerox and bandaid can.  Otherwise this opens us up to including every brand name in existence, which is not dictionary material.  Unless someone can show exactly where else the line should be drawn, I say we draw it here.  Atelaes 04:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there are resources that would make it fairly easy to draw sensible lines. I've been tossing some ideas back and forth in my mind and would say, for example, that we can easily agree to exclude company names that are just collections of surnames (e.g. Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ethan Allen). I do, however, think that we should make every effort to list all brand names for medications (Tylenol, Dexatrim, Motrin, Prozac) because I can see a particular utility to such listings, in part because the drug makers tend to come up with fanciful words, and in part because most such drugs can be described by reference to their key ingredient (i.e. acetaminophen, ibuprofen). I'd also be rather inclined to include fanciful car names (Integra, Montero, Prius). There are hardly so many that it would cause a fuss. With respect to other corporate or brand names, I'd set a higher criteria than the CFI to show that the brand name is used in some descriptive or attributive sense, but that should be easy for truly mega-brands such as Coke and Pepsi, McDonalds, Microsoft, etc. bd2412 T 03:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be useful, but the utility argument is a very well documented logical fallacy. We're aren't aiming to be useful, we're aiming to be a dictionary (which is useful, of course, but not just). Usefulness includes TV listings, atlases, currency converters, whatever you can think of; there are lots of useful things. I fail to see why we would give any class of words immunity from CFI, and I especially fail to see why, if we did, we would want them to be medications and car models. Those aren't within the urview of a dictionary, but are more appropriate at an encyclopedia. Trademarked names or brand names still need to pass attestation with independent use (and not just mention). I would suggest a vote to make the point clear, but I'm already satisfied with CFI's wording: "To be included, the use of a trademark or company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word) has to be attested." Dmcdevit 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Beer_parlour_archive/2009/March

Specific entities

 * See also Talk:France, Votes/pl-2007-05/Placenames 2, Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A, Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2007-06/Placenames 2-A, WT:RFD, Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza, Talk:Golden Gate Bridge, WT:RFD, WT:RFD

This is a request to rewrite WT:CFI as it pertains to the inclusion of specific entities, that is, proper nouns that refer to a single, unique object or place. Currently "a name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning". Sears Tower and until recently Empire State Building were named as failing this test. Many other current entries like Golden Gate Bridge and even France would fail as well, though there is community support to keep. In fact, there is good reason to include specific entities such as these. They have exact translations into other languages, sometimes based on the translation of certain words, or a transliteration of the spelling, or phonetic approximation, or some mixture. This can often be inaccurate from historical times but preserved to the present, so assumptions cannot be made. While an encyclopedia is useful for detailed information on the entity, translations are our linguistic duty.

In my mind the question is whether the term has entered the lexicon, which is weighed through citation, and hopefully not arduously. I propose to expand the criteria to "attributively or generically" and/or "metaphorically". I would also like to clarify what is meant by this with examples, as is done with a subpage for brand names. However, I am not certain myself on what would count, or even what does count now, particularly as there had been debate on the meaning of attributive. Your thoughts and examples on this would be greatly appreciated. Personally I don't believe that notability should play into the determination, as it does on Wikipedia but never here. However, I would like to add a clause similar to "clearly widespread use" to prevent overburdening with citation requests, perhaps with "clearly widespread knowledge of" or something similar.

What I mean by generic/metaphoric are uses that don't mean the entity itself, but an entity with analogous characteristics. For instance, use of a(n) instead of the is a great example, and thankfully not usually so difficult to search for: "the energy needed to keep a Sears Tower or a World Trade Center functioning". Also the...of as in "the Washington, DC, of Western Europe", possibly other constructions. Let me know what you think. 72.177.113.91 08:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favour, although I'd like to give everyone a chance to point out any obvious flaws we've missed. This is a likeable proposal because it reinterprets or relaxes the existing rule, rather than adding new ones.


 * However, I think we could go even further, within our mandate, although I can't think of any suitable criteria. To support toponymy, the division of onomastics which studies place names, we could certainly allow a much broader range of geographic names.  This is done in etymological dictionaries, and specialized geographic dictionaries.


 * But we must stick to information about the terms, and not about the things they represent. Etymology, pronunciation, usage are in.  Encyclopedic and gazetteer information are not. —Michael Z. 2009-03-12 19:42 z 


 * Wikigazeteer would be a great project within WMF. We could incubate it here. Initially, we could focus on the terms alone, which would build on the linguistic diversity among Wiktionarians. We would thereby, together with WP, provide a core for any eventual independent Wikigazeteer. We should be happy to serve the WMF community and eventual Wikigazeteer enthusiasts by providing the maintenance during the incubator period. Even in long run we could provide the much-appreciated service of etymological support as we do for Wikipedia and Wikispecies. We probably should provide a category structure ASAP. Who wants to run with this? DCDuring TALK 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's concentrate on a dictionary of geographic names, on etymological principals. A gazetteer is fundamentally different – it's about places, not  the names of places.  Of course someone's WikiGaz project would be welcome to grab our data and structure, but let's not duplicate Wikipedia by making a gazetteer here. —Michael Z. 2009-03-12 21:35 z 
 * Do you mean, Mzajac, that London should be defined not as "1. The capital city of the United Kingdom and of England, situated near the mouth of the River Thames in southeast England, with a metropolitan population of more than 12,000,000. 2. A city in southwestern Ontario, Canada, with a population of approximately 300,000. 3. A city in Ohio, USA." but only as "1. " or perhaps "1. "?—msh210 ℠  21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean, Msh210, that if the (uncited, undated) population figures were removed, you wouldn't know which city was being referred to? —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 04:33 z 


 * Do you think that there should be separate entries for London, England and London, Ontario? Or just a single entry for London with separate senses? DCDuring TALK 10:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely one entry about the place name “London”, no entries about particular localities. Heck, for dictionary purposes we could list all of the places under a single sense as far as I'm concerned – but perhaps that would become unsatisfactory in the long run, as more information is added (e.g., Londonderry derives from the sense of London, England, not London, Ontario). —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 15:03 z 


 * So this would an entry with a definition that needed no definition, being a locus for pronunciations and translations? I suppose you might need some ability to discriminate between pronunciations by referent, say, between Cairo, Egypt (chiro), and Cairo, Illinois ('kay-ro). Would you want the entry to indicate whether the name was in current use with respect to a specific referent (see Salisbury) and, if not, what the successor was? DCDuring TALK 17:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And etymology, of course. This would add depth to the remainder of our dictionary, as words spring from place names and vice versa (Tyndall stone, chicken Kiev, cf. Київ). I'm not sure what you mean about the referent, but currency of usage is relevant, and that a place is named after another belongs in the etymology.


 * Well, London can be defined as the city that is located near the mouth of the Thames, being the capital and largest city of the United Kingdom. In practice, I suppose many places would be identified rather than “defined”.  This isn't much different from our special handling of entries on individual letters, numerals, symbols, etc.


 * I don't think the separate pronunciations for Cairo warrant two main headings – this could be done with a qualifier label for the pronunciation, or a usage note.


 * Perhaps such entries can be distinguished with a Toponym heading instead of just Proper noun. —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 22:51 z 


 * (Belatedly responding to Mzajac's reply to me.) I don't mean anything. I was merely trying to clarify your intent. That said, I would not mind if only placenames that met strict criteria (such as our current attributive-use criterion) had full definitions (like "A city in England"), and all others were allowed in if attested but with only quasi-definitions like "A city name" or "A place name". I think that that's workable.—msh210 ℠  16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be definitionless. The entry could just be something like a Wikispecies entry, putting each place in hierarchies of places, eg, EU/Great Britain/England/London/Knightsbridge, providing etymologies, alternative spellings, synonyms, translations, and links to other projects. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think that most place names should go in Wikipedia. I'd be fine expanding upon the "used attributively" clause but I don't want them all here. Wikipedia handles them much better (e.g. the pop-out WikiMiniAtlas was created for them). One reason people often mention for including place names is that someone needs to catalogue translations of place names, and since bilingual dictionaries often do this we should as well. But when I want to translation a proper noun (whether place name or other), I almost always go to wikipedia and find the appropriate iwiki link. To add one that's missing, create the article (potentially a "stub") in the target language wiki and insert in the iwiki links. While it's not perfect, it does a good job. Wikipedia is different than standard encyclopedias, and analogously just because bilingual dictionaries provide translations of proper nouns doesn't necesarily mean we should. We can reinterpret our goals in the context of the wikifamily. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How many clicks does it take you? How many clicks could we offer? How likely would a user be to find us rather than Wikipedia from Google or similar starting point? DCDuring TALK 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * as a non-native speaker the standard pronunciation of say place names would be paramount for me to know to avoid ridicule of less knowledgeable native speakers [I speak from experience unfortunately, sad smiley]than one finds here in thewictionary community -- so please please, whether  under  form of links or direct entries, help make such information available!史凡 07:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The general principle is: all words in all languages. In my opinion, New York, Phoenix, Stratford-upon-Avon, William and Shakespeare are words, and should be accepted. On the other hand, Phoenix, AZ or William Shakespeare are names, but not words, and should not be accepted. Lmaltier 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC) And Wikipedia does not include pronunciations, etymologies, derived terms, anagrams, etc. Lmaltier 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in point of fact, Wikipedia articles routinely contain pronunciation and etymological info. See e.g. Chicago.  And thanks to interwikis, they contain translations into most languages that users are likely to need (and the FL wiki article will often contain useful contextual information that one would be unlikely to find on Wiktionary).  As for derived terms, I'm not sure how much value they add, but I would support expanding the attributive use criterion to include any place name that is an etymon of one or more valid words.  (In fact, that was my original understanding of the criterion, though I have since been disabused of that.) -- Visviva 04:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Beer_parlour_archive/2009/August - Short discussion leading to a vote.

Clarification of WT:CFI
This comes from Requests for deletion, and many other discussions. I'd like to amend the guideline as follows. Please suggest improvements, and I'll start a vote shortly. —Michael Z. 2009-08-19 04:47 z 


 * A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning, independent of its referent . For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen”, to describe refer to a particular sort of delicatessen. A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Sears Tower, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included. Similarly, whilst Jefferson (an attested family name word with an etymology that Wiktionary can discuss) and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not.

Started a vote at Votes/pl-2009-08/Clarify names of specific entities. —Michael Z. 2009-08-27 04:53 z 

Since there's no discussion, I'll start the vote now. —Michael Z. 2009-08-30 17:23 z  Votes/pl-2009-08/Clarify names of specific entities - Vote fails.

Beer_parlour

Names of specific entries (again)
I thought I'd copy the URL to save time (here). The several problems I can find (for me, anyway) are:


 * 1) What is a specific entry? Proper nouns aren't always specific entries, like Stephen as you can have several Stephens. So it refers to things that there are only one of, right? Still, ambiguous.
 * 2) Used attributively. Okay I'll spare you use but attributively and attributive aren't very detailed and give almost no help. If it's just the grammatical sense of attributively, then almost any place name will meet CFI because place names (in English) don't have adjectival forms. So I'm from Leeds. A Leeds taxi, a Leeds restaurant. All of these attributive, right? I'd think as long as the place name is not extremely, the attributive form won't be either.
 * 3) Widely understood meaning. A debate broke out over Daffy Duck that even though it can be cited attributively, it doesn't have a widely understood meaning. What does that even mean? I mean Daffy Duck means a cartoon duck, right? In the same way that Leeds means a city in West Yorkshire. Is there another meaning of Leeds? Or Confucius means a 5th Century BC philosopher. AFAICT "widely understood meaning" doesn't put any limits on what the meaning is, it just has to have one.

Admittedly, and I can barely stress this enough I don't really have a better idea but maybe someone else does? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have boldly edited Editable CFI to reflect my understanding of this annoyingly oracular passage. I hope that those who disagree will boldly revert or revise my edit, and perhaps we can eventually work out something that will have a working consensus behind it.  Here's the problem asa I see it: the lack of clarity of the current wording has given everyone cover to read whatever they want into it (or to ignore it entirely).  Any efforts to clarify it thus mean that someone's ox will get gored, and so are voted down for the most ridiculously disingenuous reasons.  It's worth reiterating that there was never any consensus for CFI to be set in stone ; the current state of  is purely the product of some erratic editing by Richardb and Connel in 2006. -- Visviva 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's already about 50 times better. If we could have a few more people edit it and then have a vote on it, I would be pretty happy. But at the very least, it has to be worded in a way that is a lot less ambiguous, I tend to think that everything is at least a little bit ambiguous. But hey, c'est la vie. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For (1) see Appendix:English proper nouns. Visviva got my understanding of (2+3) right (a definition independent of the referent). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Until we can agree on sets of proper nouns that should be included in their own right, I don't see a successful vote to make the change. The current proposal makes one criterion clearer, but rewords it in such a way as to exclude most names of countries, etc., which is a set of proper nouns most community editors have supported for inclusion in the past. I have made one small edit to the last sentence, since the way that is was worded would require that we include Thomas Jefferson (or any other full name) if there were more than one individual with that name, which is probably not what was intended. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)