Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion/Place name arguments

Namespace
Has anyone brought up a proposal to have a separate namespace for place names that aren't included under the CFI? For example at Paris where we would list the surnames and given names there could be a See also Placename:Paris directing the reader to a specifically place names entries. Translations in that namespace would (most likely) stay within that namespace which would be convenient. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recollect it having been suggested. A separate space would allow the distinctive nature of that class of entries to be addressed without forcing compromises on the balance of Wiktionary. Would the new namespace have, in principle, each and every placename called Paris? DCDuring TALK 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That namespace could have its own CFI/ELE and therefore separate the debate of "whether to have any place names" from "if so which ones" and "how do we layout such an entry". I think even unique names could have interesting linguistic attributes so I'd be tempted to allow any (with some proof of existence of course). And since sometimes the translation could change for say Paris, USA vs Paris, FR I'd imagine a list of such places would be helpful. With a modified entry layout hopefully we wouldn't worry so much about whether these are separate definitions or not. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be an interesting experiment at least. It might become a vital part of Wiktionary. It might become a separate project. I eagerly await comment from all those who have advocated placenames in N(0) in particular or in principle. This proposal is a good way to see if there are any real sustaining advocates. It would reduce the cost of the experimentation likely to be required dramatically. Perhaps we should invite some of the placenames discussion participants sooner rather than later to this page, even before it goes to BP.
 * How comfortable are you on the technical side of this? Would it be a part of default searches ultimately? Would every placenames page also have an N(0) page with a soft redirect (via something like a definition line or ) or a hard redirect to placename space? It wouldn't seem that it should have/would need a tab visible from the headword page. DCDuring TALK 01:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that the Placename: would not be searched by default, but that there would be an index of all such entries somewhere in the default searchable area. That way people could find the terms without having redirects for otherwise non-existing NS:0 terms. More voices are always welcome. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move
I've moved this page from Place names to Criteria for inclusion/Place name arguments, because this page is only a list of possible arguments with no policy value, while I'd like to use the "good" name for something else. Feel free to discuss. In the meantime, I'll leave a disambiguation link at Place names pointing to this page. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)