Talk:United Nations
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Rich Farmbrough in topic Native Americans
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I want to run this as a test case for inclusion of organizations. Please consider posting not bare keep or deletes but state your tentative principles or rationales. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. 1) There are 6 lemmings, which is a very high number; even OED has it. 2) It is not a transparently named organization; the term does not refer to a plurality of nations but rather to an organization. Red Cross and Red Crescent were kept as not being transparently named; Red Cross is not a red cross and Red Crescent is not a red crescent. By contrast, National Baseball Association is a national baseball association and European Central Bank (recently kept in RFD) is a central bank of the European Union, both arguably transparently named. 3) It is an important international organization. I feel this is not a very good principle, but since our CFI differentiates proper names by classes of referents, this seems not completely irrelevant. Including ECB could be justified on that principle. 4) Corollary: "exclude all multi-word names of organizations" is rejected. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop making these kinds of nominations, as they are a transparent attempt to lend legitimacy to your repeated efforts to install LEMMINGS as a policy, and it is obvious that you will try to use them as precedent in the future. Theknightwho (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is to elicit all kinds of principles, not just lemmings. One of the objectives is to show that "exclude all multi-word names of organizations" has no support and examine a refinement of the principle, such as "exclude all multi-word names of organizations that name in a transparent matter". My hope is that this will elicit some differentiated reasoning, better than the undifferentiated "exclude as encyclopedic" thing. Lemmings can be installed as a policy only via a vote, and cannot be installed by precedent. And lemmings would have to be optional/overidable to succeed anyway. There is enough precedent for lemmings keeping an entry and also enough precedent for lemmings being ignored and leading to deletion, so the above reading of my motives is not even superficially plausible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- This page is for requests for deletion. If this isn’t a request for deletion, it belongs in the Tea Room. Your motives are also transparently clear, which is why you posted this here and not there. Theknightwho (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Requests for deletion have been productively used in the past to help create test cases and advance policy discussion. To wit, Talk:I love you lead to realization that the phrasebook was actually covered by CFI. If the case is in fact clear, people can just vote "Obviously keep" or something, no loss of effort, and it can be snowballed. More refined rationales would be welcome. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- You pulling the same bullshit twice does not justify doing it. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Such strong words for something so eminently useful. If this is such a clear case, advancing it to snowball will be a breeze. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have already pointed out that we have a more appropriate forum. Please learn to read comments in full before responding to them. Theknightwho (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Such strong words for something so eminently useful. If this is such a clear case, advancing it to snowball will be a breeze. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- You pulling the same bullshit twice does not justify doing it. Theknightwho (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Requests for deletion have been productively used in the past to help create test cases and advance policy discussion. To wit, Talk:I love you lead to realization that the phrasebook was actually covered by CFI. If the case is in fact clear, people can just vote "Obviously keep" or something, no loss of effort, and it can be snowballed. More refined rationales would be welcome. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- This page is for requests for deletion. If this isn’t a request for deletion, it belongs in the Tea Room. Your motives are also transparently clear, which is why you posted this here and not there. Theknightwho (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is to elicit all kinds of principles, not just lemmings. One of the objectives is to show that "exclude all multi-word names of organizations" has no support and examine a refinement of the principle, such as "exclude all multi-word names of organizations that name in a transparent matter". My hope is that this will elicit some differentiated reasoning, better than the undifferentiated "exclude as encyclopedic" thing. Lemmings can be installed as a policy only via a vote, and cannot be installed by precedent. And lemmings would have to be optional/overidable to succeed anyway. There is enough precedent for lemmings keeping an entry and also enough precedent for lemmings being ignored and leading to deletion, so the above reading of my motives is not even superficially plausible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop making these kinds of nominations, as they are a transparent attempt to lend legitimacy to your repeated efforts to install LEMMINGS as a policy, and it is obvious that you will try to use them as precedent in the future. Theknightwho (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments at Wiktionary:Votes/2022-06/Updating CFI for names of organizations and Wiktionary talk:Votes/2022-06/Updating CFI for names of organizations § Too broad of a proposal. AG202 (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Major international organisation. Useful to our users. John Cross (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Dictionaries should not contain proper nouns, especially ones that only refer to one thing. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- The above is invalid: we have approved extensive coverage of geographic proper names. We have first names and surnames. I ask the closer to discount the above vote in so far as permissible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of the entry at hand, I would thoroughly review WT:CFI when it comes to proper nouns in general. If you have an issue with proper nouns being in Wiktionary at all, I'd suggest making a post about it in Beer Parlour. See also: the issue with OED initially barring proper nouns, also mentioned in Beer Parlour. AG202 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- RFD kept: deletion seems unlikely, enough time has passed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Native Americans[edit]
The Six Nations are also referred to as the Six United Nations and as the United Nations. Possibly also the Confederated Nations. See: Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania, and the First Nations
The Treaties of 1736-62 (2006). Rich Farmbrough, 11:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC).