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

Issues

 * I1: "these are standard rhetorical devices which affect the meaning of a statement as a whole, but do not change the meaning of the words themselves": This is a subject of academic disagreement, AFAIK. CFI does not need to contain these sort of sentences that are unnecessary for the regulation and can be questioned as for accuracy.
 * I2: "the fact that an English speaker might use the word in these ways is obvious and not especially noteworthy": is superfluous and non-regulatory.
 * I3: "Figures of speech that are not obvious from their parts or which are never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits.": Not sure why this is here and what it covers; a figure of speech is non-literal use; how can a non-literal use somes be used literally?

The issues can be addressed by reducing the proposal to this:

The straightforward use of sarcasm, irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion. This means, for example, that big should not be defined as "(sarcastic) 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.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems pretty sensible. I agree with the substantive content of your version. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:English sarcastic terms
I'm pretty sure that I support the inclusion of everything currently in this category, but I worry that the phrasing of this vote would potentially exclude them, because it really isn't very clear. I don't know how to improve this, but I also don't think that I could support the vote while this grey area persists. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Half the things in that category aren't even sarcasm, IMO, e.g. mansplain and freeze peach. They should be kept but removed from that category. That reduces the size of the issue. Some more entries could be covered by some kind of recognition that we don't want to add sarcasm senses to existing entries (entries for words which are mostly non-sarcastic), but words which mostly/exclusively are sarcastic are another matter, e.g. surprise surprise's only sense is a sarcastic one. Let's see how many (and which) words are left after those two things are accounted for. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the part about adding it to existing entries. The basic point is that I can't support a vote that might exclude . —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There was originally a sentence that "Terms that are never used literally are not covered by this rule", which went amiss during editing. I've restored that. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Terms which are seldom or never used literally are not covered by this rule, and can be included on their own merits": That should be in the first sentence. One should not be making an inaccurate sentence and then make exceptions to it in a sentence at the end of a paragraph. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Like this:

The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement and hyperbole does not usually qualify for inclusion ; this does not apply to terms which are seldom or never used literally. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems worse in terms of the flow of thought through the paragraph: First you introduce a rule, then you give the exceptions, then you go back and explain the original rule more. Perhaps it would be clearer to have:


 * The straightforward sarcastic use of irony, understatement or hyperbole does not produce a distinct sense of a term. 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.
 * That way, it's immediately clear that what the rule's limits are – the final sentence emphasizes the point, but doesn't contradict anything. It might also help Metaknowledge's worry that it should it be clear that it's only about adding useless senses to existing entries. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also wonder whether we should somehow change the part referring to hyperbole/understatement. While I think it's generally not useful to have in entries when it just changes the degree of something, I wouldn't want to remove the "hot" and "cold" senses from boiling and freezing (respectively). These aren't "straightforward" uses of hyperbole (since they rely on extending the meaning of boiling" from "undergoing the gaseous phase transition" to "hot"), but it would be good to make the distinction a bit clearer, I think. Any ideas, anyone? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Smurrayinchester: In my view, accuracy and clarity is more important than flow. I hate the practice of making inaccurate statements that are corrected by exceptions, especially when the exceptions are the last thing being stated.
 * That said, I prefer your version with "does not produce a distinct sense of a term" to what there is now, viz "does not usually qualify for inclusion". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody going to start this vote?
It was supposed to have started over a week ago? Pur ple back pack 89  20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, do you? Nobody has to start it; it has begun and nobody has voted yet. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it had not begun. A vote does not begin until someone posts a vote to it and removes the amber box that says "This vote has not yet started" (box still there in ). It is only when Romanophile posted the 1st vote and removed the amber box that the vote started. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When I posted, I was posting about the revision Dan links to, when the amber box is still up. For the life of me, I don't understand why you're being so mean to me of late: first the completely ridiculous claim that creating flag jacker and flag jack was disruptive (it wasn't, it was BOLD), and now claiming I don't understand this.  Cool your damn jets. Pur ple back pack 89   13:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read the box? says "Once the starting date has arrived, this banner may be ignored or removed." As for those creations that you're bringing up out of nowhere, they were certainly disruptive. I bet Dan would agree with me that when a longtime editor who knows better creates multiple entries that are completely uncitable, that's not just BOLDness. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They weren't uncitable, you just think they were because you didn't find anything on Google Books. There's a number of non-Google books citations that I have added to flag jacking-related entries.  Also, remember that one is not required to cite entries when creating them; and one is permitted to create entries even if he/she is unsure if they can or can't be cited.  Even you yourself have created entries that had no citations. , any chance you could get this guy to bugger off me? Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   22:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)