Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-12/Phrasebook CFI

Phrasebook CFI
Voting on: Changing the phasebook criteria in WT:CFI as follows:

New: Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. An attested English term that appears to be a sum of its parts should be included as a phrasebook entry if it is present in at least three independent professionally published phrasebooks; if an attested English phrasebook entry does not meet that, it can only be included if consensus grants an exception. For attested non-English terms, the phrasebook inclusion criteria are unspecified, but being a translation of an includable English phrasebook term is a hint. An example phrasebook entry is what is your name.

Old: Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.

Rationale: See vote talk page. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Votes/pl-2010-10/Phrasebook CFI
 * Wikt rei-artur3.svg Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-12/Phrasebook CFI

Support

 * 1)  in general as a phrasebook contributor. For non-English phrases, we should also aim at including stock phrases used in specific languages and cultures. For example, Arabic  (used by Muslims), Japanese  (a stock phrase usually used by a senior towards subordinates), Sinhalese  (a form of greeting) should be included, even if their translation (especially literal) into English is not necessarily includable as a phrasebook entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All your examples are already included based on our current policies; are there any entries that we want that this vote would allow but are currently excluded? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As for entries included only because of phrasebook, I am thinking of I'm hungry and it counterparts cs:mám hlad (redlink, "I have hunger") and de:ich habe Hunger ("I have hunger), and further I'm cold, cs:je mi zima (redlink) and de:mir ist kalt (redlink). There are more examples at User talk:Dan Polansky/2013. Note that these are not currently excluded since we do currently have a phrasebook provision in WT:CFI, just that the provision does not provide any operationalized criteria. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) . Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) . — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) . ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  per my rationale on the talk page. The prasebook is useful but having no easy-to-administer criteria is something of a problem. An example RFD currently ongoing: Requests for deletion/English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) .Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Wiktionary isn't a paper phrasebook. I don't think phrases should be limited to what's in paper phrasebooks and agreed to bureaucratically. Having said that, I can't offhand think of a much better set of criteria to replace the "consensus." —  [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that the part "if an attested English phrasebook entry does not meet that, it can only be included if consensus grants an exception" does provide for inclusion of phrases not in other phrasebooks, albeit against the bar of 2/3 supermajority. Thus, if there is a consensus for including an extra item, it can be included. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) . I think the old text is incomprehensible though, so the proposed text would be an improvement in that respect at least.  Per utramque cavernam 18:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Per utramque cavernam: Would you care to provide a rationale for the oppose vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I'm not keen on having phrasebook entries in the mainspace (though I realise my vote doesn't really help in going in that direction).
 * I think the phrasebook entries possibly worth having are already salvageable by other means.
 * Also, I find the proposal too abstract: I don't know what items we have that we wouldn't have with the proposed criterion; conversely, I don't know what items we don't have that we would have with the proposed criterion. Per utramque cavernam 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'm not keen" is not stated in term of benefits for the reader. As for "too abstract", the proposal is not abstract, but you seem to be missing example phrasebook entries, and these are I'm hungry (cs:mám hlad) and I'm cold (cs:je mi zima). --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but I'm thinking of something else that seems as important: the task of a dictionary. Here's our definition of : "A reference work with a list of words from one or more languages, normally ordered alphabetically, explaining each word's meaning". We can argue endlessly on the definition of "word", but I'm pretty sure everybody agrees it does not include complete sentences. How is "how do I get to the bus station" a word?
 * All I'm saying is: we can be useful, yes, but not at the expense of forgetting our purpose here: building a dictionary; not a grammar book, not a phrase book.
 * "you seem to be missing example phrasebook entries, and these are I'm hungry (cs:mám hlad) and I'm cold (cs:je mi zima)": this isn't an answer to my query above. I've asked for concrete examples of what would be allowed with the proposed criterion that isn't currently allowed, and conversely. Per utramque cavernam 18:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm hungry is allowed by the proposed criterion and needs the phrasebook protection; as for current criterion, it is so vague that it is not very clear what it protects and what it does not protect, although it probably does protect I'm hungry as well. Because of the vagueness, I cannot answer your question; rather, I propose to replace a vague criterion with very unclear boundaries with a specific, easy-to-administer criterion. As for "word" and dictionary, that is the wrong way of looking at it; black hole is not a word, and nor are proverbs words but rather complete sentences. We have WT:CFI spelling it quite clearly. Wiktionary is not narrow-minded, or at least the English Wiktionary is not. As for "we are building a dictionary", we are not building anything narrowly conceived: we have a rhyme guide, a thesaurus (semantic network), topical categories, etc. The phrasebook makes good use of our entry format as for translations, and is a welcome addition, providing added value to the reader. The quoted definition of a dictionary is wrong anyway; there are pronunciation-only dictionaries and etymology-only dictionaries, etc.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Be it proverbs, affixes, compound nouns, idioms, all of those are included by virtue of being non-SOP "lexical units" in some way. We can argue over what is and what is not SOP, but we're working under the assumption that for something to be included in the main space, it mustn't be SOP. Translation targets go against that notion, and that's why I disagreed with the THUB proposal. I think phrasebook sentences are an even worse type of translation-target entries, and that to start including those will further dilute the essence and purpose of the main space.
 * "we have a rhyme guide, a thesaurus (semantic network), topical categories, etc." Yes, and all of that is outside the main space. That's why I don't have a problem with it. Per utramque cavernam 19:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that 'We can argue endlessly on the definition of "word", but I'm pretty sure everybody agrees it does not include complete sentences' needs to be retracted as irrelevant. There has to be a meaningful development in the discussion. Wrong arguments need to be retracted when pointed out. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see what warrants this grating remark; I've already reworded my initial message. The term "word" may have been poorly chosen, though I thought it sufficiently vague to include all sorts of "lexical units" (including proverbs and compound nouns); what else do you want me to say? Do you disagree with something in particular in the first paragraph of my 19:25 post? Per utramque cavernam 19:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per utramque cavernam 11:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you support the phrasebook in a separate mainspace, you need to 1) admit that it will still be part of Wiktionary database, and 2) you need to explain the benefit to the reader of the dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's what I was writing: If we want phrasebook type content, fine, but I'll add: "not in the main space; let's find another way". You generally object that something has to be in the mainspace for maximum utility and visibility. I disagree with your assumption. By the way, I don't ever see you voice such misgivings about the Thesaurus. I'd like to find a list of synonyms of "weird"; how am I going to know that I have to type "Thesaurus:strange" into the search bar? Well, I look around a bit, using my common sense. I find there's a link to the Thesaurus in the synonyms sections of both and, and everybody is happy. Per utramque cavernam 19:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * : I'm in two minds about this, but erring towards Oppose. The existing wording does need improving, but I think the proposed wording isn't quite right. I'm sorry that I didn't formulate and voice these opinions before the vote started, but it's taken me a while to process the implications and get my thoughts in order. -Stelio (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (re-signed with sig on same line as vote, so that it is counted correctly)
 * On the one hand, it's a phrasebook equivalent to the lemming vote: three professional publications include a phrase, so we should too. Additional phrases require consensus. Attestation is required either way.
 * On the other hand, whereas dictionary entries are (arguably) objective units of language for which I think we can take the lead of professional lexicographers, I find phrasebook entries to be far more subjective. What gets included in one phrasebook and not another varies. As does the exact wording.
 * Would you include all of these phrases if they each passed the proposed test? "Do you have a room?" / "I would like a room, please." / "Are there any rooms left?" (related but different phrases).
 * Would you include all of these phrases if they each passed the proposed test? "I want the bill." / "I would like the bill." / "The bill, please." (rephrasing a single underlying intent).
 * I feel like referring to professional publications is a useful test for whether we include a phrase, but I also feel like we should have the option to refuse to include a phrase, even if it's in three professional publications, if our consensus is to exclude it (perhaps, for example, because it practically replicates an existing phrasebook entry that we have listed).
 * I have the suspicion that there are published phrasebook entries that we as a community may feel we don't need to list at all. Perhaps an example would be phrases from old phrasebooks that are effectively obsolete? Something like, "When does the next Zeppelin depart?"
 * And there doesn't appear to be a way to disallow published snowclones under this proposal ("I am an accountant." / "I am an actuary." / "I am an architect." / "I am an astronaut." / "I am a baker." / "I am a banker." / "I am a boxer." / "I am a butcher." / "I am a candlestick maker." / "I am a cartographer." ...).
 * Lastly, I note that  has been published by professional publishers. I'm sure we would not consider such a work as a "professionally published phrasebook" for the purposes of this proposal, but there's nothing in the wording that allows for an exclusion for this or other works of similarly dubious quality (in the same way that the lemming vote allows for certain sources to be excluded).
 * -Stelio (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Illogical extension. The proposed wording talks about “sum of parts” when it did not matter for phrases under the phrasebook project anyway. The usefulness criterion is fine. Not sure what “three independent professionally published phrasebooks” could tell us, only that is surely would be contentious. Finding that “phrasebooks” can contain everything (what is a phrase? You know how broadly it used, like in “nominal phrase”, “verbal phrase”) we would still fall-back to the usefulness criterion. So this vote only introduces discord and solves nothing. Fay Freak (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is actually usefulness that brings about discord, as per past discussions. The proposal replaces something vague with something reasonably specific and easy to administer. There can be disagreements about which phrasebook is "professionally published", but much less so than about whether a phrase is useful for a phrasebook. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be many question marks about which phrases count or what qualifies. A “phrasebook” isn’t as much a closed thing as you might imagine.
 * Plus I pose the question if looking through phrasebooks is what dictionary editors should do: Our company isn’t that large that this work wouldn’t make a difference. Instead of looking through phrasebooks you could just decide “This phrase is useful, Imma create it”: WT:BOLD. Other people wouldn’t look anyway and just create, since this is what any IP can do. Spare your own time please. Fay Freak (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An IP can create a phrasebook entry, sure, but when the entry lands in WT:RFD, multiple editors have to spend their attention in figuring out whether to keep or delete the entry. Furthermore, an editor pondering to enter a phrase may be demotivated by lack of certainty as to whether the phrase is going to be deleted. The proposed criteria provide something like legal certainty for a core of the phrasebook, and can be effectively used in RFD, sparing editor's time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And you think editors rummaging phrase books would be less attention-intensive?
 * You are projecting. You would be motivated more, I assume, but if one is not motivated without such certainty it probably isn’t worth it to create the phrasebook entries in question. Phrasebook entry deletion requests have been not many, had little chances anyhow. I am concerned that the new rule would motivate you to create phrasebook entries that aren’t worth it. I mean well towards you and assess that you are more fruitful a creator without such a rule. Fay Freak (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do take my chances at times, but I prefer to operate under legal certainty. Multiple phrasebook entries have been removed; I have no idea where "had little chances anyhow" is coming from. As for editors searching for phrasebooks, there is, which finds enough items and the case is closed real fast, with almost no cognitive effort. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  since, from the discussion I've read, a lot of this seems to be purely a reaction to the existence of phrases like "I'm genderfluid". פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I don't see what "a lot of this" refers to. As for "I'm genderfluid", let's see: should it be kept in the phrasebook or not, and if yes, why yes, and if not, why not? The phrase "I'm genderfluid" is just an example of something that the proposal makes easy to administer, while the current criteria are so vague as to provide very little guidance on what to do with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I always find it revealing which sentences just happen to be used as examples. It explains, for example, why these new CFI are so drastically different from the CFI for normal entries, which require citations in durably archived sources instead of appearances in professionally published dictionaries. Regardless, I don't think these CFI are coherent with the CFI for normal entries. Perhaps to be fair we should just leave the phrasebook stuff to Tatoeba. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about attestation (WT:ATTEST): phrasebook entries still have to be attested, as per the proposal. It is about sum of parts. I'm hungry is a sum of parts; the point of the phrasebook criteria is to include it anyway. I noticed I'm genderfluid today; it is not an example driving this vote in any way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , principally because of the word "should"; Stelio points out a range of unwanted entries that this policy would say we "should" include (even if it does not require that we do). On the whole, this is an intriguing proposal, but to cast it in political terms, we need revolution rather than reform. That might mean a wholly new namespace and format, rather than a modified guideline in the CFI. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- Mihia (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- Jberkel 01:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

 * for now. I would suggest distinguishing phrasebook entries from ordinary dictionary entries using "Phrasebook:". This will help in distinguishing such entries from ordinary entries that are simply non-idiomatic sum-of-parts terms. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Phrasebook entries are usually distinguished using a conspicuous box, e.g. in I'm hungry. Moving them to a separate namespace would make it harder for the dictionary user to look them up; it would complicate things with no or little benefit in return that I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Provided phrasebook entries are properly marked, I have no objection to them. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision

 * 7–8–0: Vote fails no consensus. Per utramque cavernam 21:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)