Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-07/Clarify exclusion of companies

Clarify exclusion of companies

 * Voting on: Clarification of Criteria for inclusion to say more precisely what we mean by companies not being allowed.
 * Company names
 * Regardless of attested use, commercial businesses such as American Airlines are not included as definitions.
 * Exceptions to this rule are made for:
 * Fictional companies, which must still meet the requirements under “Fictional universes”.
 * Certain nicknames including abbreviations used outside of the industry without reference to the full name, such as Mickey D's or HP (for Hewlett-Packard).
 * A term may also be allowed if it has a meaning apart from the business. This could include its sense as the signature product of the company if attested under other criteria, for example the Atari brand name.
 * Fictional companies, which must still meet the requirements under “Fictional universes”.
 * Certain nicknames including abbreviations used outside of the industry without reference to the full name, such as Mickey D's or HP (for Hewlett-Packard).
 * A term may also be allowed if it has a meaning apart from the business. This could include its sense as the signature product of the company if attested under other criteria, for example the Atari brand name.
 * A term may also be allowed if it has a meaning apart from the business. This could include its sense as the signature product of the company if attested under other criteria, for example the Atari brand name.


 * Vote started: 00:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Vote created: DAVilla 05:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:RFV
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-07/Clarify exclusion of companies

Support

 * 1)  This doesn't effectively change existing policy much, not as it's practiced, but it does make that practice clearer. DAVilla 23:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Equinox ◑ 11:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This cements the Criteria for inclusion into CFI, a section with no consensual support. It confirms that companies should be basically excluded, even those having single-word names such as Pfizer, which can host etymology and pronunciation. Companies are specific entities. No one has as yet explained why companies should be regulated differently from other specific entities, which are regulated in WT:CFI. No one has explained why small villages can be included but large companies must be excluded. Like, is it because they are relatively transitory or short-lived? Or is it because they represent commercial interest and we fear we are doing advertising for them (very implausible to me)? Let me note that not all companies are using their names as brands for their products; pharmas, for instance, use specific brand names for their specific products, and thus, WT:BRAND does not protect such company names. It should be also said that WT:BRAND is over-exclusionist, leading to removal of lexicographical content for reasons not specified anywhere, AFAIK. For reference, a related vote is Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's because we fear opening the floodgates to advertising for the commercial interests they represent. Read the opposing comments in your vote, which I supported by the way.
 * This doesn't really change existing policy, so I don't understand your rationale for voting against. If anything, it sets up a framework where we can consider other exceptions, which I would be more than willing to entertain here. Pfizer may not be the best example because pronunciation can be added for the family name.
 * Our brand name policy is highly exclusionist because that's what the community supports. If you remember, it had to be modified several times before it was accepted. DAVilla 00:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The advertising argument does not hold water in the slightest. To take my example Pfizer, it would have a definition consisting of a small number of words, possibly "an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in New York City, New York", which I took from Wikipedia. By contrast, the company has Wikipedia article Pfizer of much larger scope. Of course, Wikipedia does not remove companies to avoid representing commercial interest; it tries to take care that they do not become promotional, with varying success. Wikipedia's risk of failing to ensure articles do not become promotional is many times higher than the risk Wiktionary has: we only have to take care of the definition, and ensure that it does not become promotional.
 * As for not changing policy, that is not really true. Current "policy" was entered into CFI by you without a vote, and as a consequence, it carries relatively little weight. If this vote passes, there will be a voted, real policy, which of course will have a lot of weight.
 * As for reason for exclusivenes of BRAND, "because that's what the community supports" is not a reason, it is a cause: I have not seen any rationale presented by supporters of BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As for "Read the opposing comments in your vote": Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names does not contain the words "commercial" or "commerce", and there is very little of any argument coming from the opposers at all. The following votes there have a comment that is more than empty or redirecting and thus can contain an argument: Liliana, msh210, and Ruakh. In none of the three votes do I find an explanation why having single-word company names in Wiktionary is a bad thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  It's nonsensical to allow the names of fictional companies and not allow the names of real ones. In general, I would support liberalising this dictionary's somewhat strict policy on company names – although I gather there has been a significant amount of discussion on this issue in the past, which I probably should read before commenting further. This, that and the other (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "I gather there has been a significant amount of discussion on this issue in the past": I don't think so. There was some discussion in the vote I mentioned, but there is very little of substance to be found anywhere, as far as I know. The part of CFI on company names has never passed a vote, and its supporters have never explained why keeping single-word company names is a bad thing, except perhaps one editor who says that company names are not words (as per Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI_and_company_names), and that "place-names", given names and surnames are not words either (as per Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  Company entries can contain useful etymology and pronunciation. I see no reason to have different criteria for inclusion for brands and company names. The given example is bad since American Airlines is both a company name and a brand (it is used when marketing flights). A better example would be Berkshire Hathaway or Goldman Sachs. They would pass CFI if they were product brands or place names, and I see no reason for excluding them. --Tweenk (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I think the criteria need to be changed more generally. Company and brand names are words, and should be included. However, it's not up to us to define them. So my own proposal is to allow entries, but their only definition would be a Wikipedia link and no further information on the company, brand or product should be given. Etymologies can be allowed. —CodeCat 14:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A short description on a definition line can be made very succinct and non-promotional. The genus should be stated, e.g. company, corporation or the like. And there should be some differentia. Pfizer can be made as short as "an American multinational pharmaceutical corporation"; beyond the fact that it is a corporation, it states its branch of business, the country of the headquarters and that it is multinational. I can't see how that harms or promotes anything. If that is considered too long, even "a pharmaceutical corporation" would be acceptable, IMHO: state that it is a corporation and state the branch of business. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. --Tweenk (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "genus" of companies, and what they do, make, cover, etc. changes a lot more than the meaning of words. One business takes over another every day; for example, Google has just formed a parent company called Alphabet. So definitions would be tedious and soon outdated. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of "Google" as "multinational information technology company originating in the Silicon Valley" would not need changing in that case, and Alphabet would not pass CFI yet. --Tweenk (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  Company names should be allowed. I find especially interesting cases when English and FL names (specifically Chinese) are completely different, such as Acer and (a deleted entry) . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails 2–3–2. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Would anyone like to put this through in a way that would allow company names? It seems like there is support for this; in fact, it would appear to have undermined this vote on what I thought was existing practice. Broadly speaking, it would make sense to me to use the same approach as with brand names, which is how we assure that corporate interests here are minimized. I haven't given much thought to how that language could apply, but it may be simple to merge it all into a single section. DAVilla 05:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument with corporate interest should be dropped. It is utterly unconvincing, as I have shown. If any project has any real issue with corporate interests, it is Wikipedia, providing more than very few words for each company. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Our bigger sister project at least has a notability criterion. Putting aside the question of whether we want to define First National Bank of Hackensack, there are definitely short-lived, local, unnotable businesses that we wouldn't want to include, and I'd prefer to have some criterion over none. Creativity is fine if anyone has an idea; merging with brand names might be cleaner and easier. DAVilla 03:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)