Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-03/Excluding most sarcastic usage from CFI

Excluding most sarcastic usage from CFI

 * Voting on: Adding the following to CFI:


 * The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion. This means, for example, that big should not be defined as "(ironic) small", "(understatement) gigantic" or "(hyperbole) moderately large". Common rhetorical use can be explained in a usage note, a context tag (such as (Usually sarcastic)) or as part of the literal definition. Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits.


 * Vote started: 00:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/March
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Talk:Einstein, Talk:touché, Talk:James Bond, Talk:thanks a lot
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-03/Excluding most sarcastic usage from CFI

Support

 * 1) . Virtually any word can be used sarcastically. -- Romanophile  ♞ (contributions) 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Anything truly distinctive about sarcastic use can usually be communicated by labels or usage notes. DCDuring TALK  01:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  Agreed, sarcasm and irony aren't inherent in words; they depend on context.  The fact that a particular word or phrase might often be used sarcastically doesn't result in its acquiring a new sense.  If there are examples where such usage is important to note, this can be mentioned through explanatory notes, or an exception to the general rule could be made.  Better to make exceptions when justified than to have no policy at all.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  --WikiTiki89 14:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , but if the sarcastic sense of the word becomes a primary sense, then it should be included. In other words, if people start using the word in that sense without using a sarcastic tone of voice, then it can be considered an actual definition of the word. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Vahag (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- profesjonalizm • reply 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  —   D b f  i  r  s   20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  ~Eloquio (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ƿidsiþ 17:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  — Aryamanarora (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , wording seems clear enough, and examples are good - perhaps an example of a term that is primarily used sarcastically could be given (e.g. "cheap at half the price")? But even without this, still useful guidance.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  I don't like to have an exception at the very end, but the paragraph is reasonably short, and the substance seems okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Too blanket a proposal.  Guideline, perhaps, but not policy. Pur ple back pack 89   13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  because I really really really care about the outcome of the vote. Zo3rWer (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes 16‒1‒1 (94·12% : 5·88%). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What's with the unusual decimal points? --WikiTiki89 15:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was always taught to place decimal points at the midline. / It sidesteps the ,–. controversy. / It makes 'em look moar purdier.  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where were you always taught this? It doesn't sidestep the controversy, it just introduces a new faction into it (see this xkcd). Since mid-dots are also used for multiplication (which is how I read it at first), I think it is probably a much worse choice than either "." or ",". --WikiTiki89 16:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Secondary school, 1990s–2000s. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You failed to mention the most important part, which is where? But based on my findings below, I can already guess the answer is Britain. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Britain; sorry. I've never seen a midline dot used for multiplication before. Is the symbol for that ⟨ ⟩, ⟨  ⟩, or something else? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My secondary school encouraged this too. (Edit: this was in the 1990s. I have only used this in writing, never on a computer. I thought it might be because little dots can easily be missed when placed on the lines ruled across pages of an exercise book.) Equinox ◑ 00:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, according to Wikipedia, it's a British thing. --WikiTiki89 16:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But an old-fashioned one. Even my dad's old maths books use a full stop. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood, but your two sentences seem to contradict each other. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Woah! I had no knowledge of this practice before now. — JohnC5 19:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that even British books published in the 70s and earlier use "0.5" not "0·5" Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I have only ever seen (and used) mid dots for multiplication and have used full stops (periods) for decimal points. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I always thought a space dot was some kind of black hole...--SimonP45 (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For any future readers, I would share that I was somewhat confused and annoyed when faced with an old ('80) work on spectroscopy by Cambridge people, where not only was the decimal point midline, but full stops were used for multiplication, e.g. ɛ.l.c.___Gamren (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)