Talk:sunyata

I read the cited policy from the earlier deletion, which says. Note:# Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry).

Sunyata, like karma and nirvana, is used in English discussion, albeit not as widely.

Please note RFV at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#sunyata_is_not_like_spaghetti.2C_but_it_is_like_rigatoni Geof Bard 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFV

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

sunyata

"Sunyata" is used in philosophy and theology discussions particularly East - West dialogue. Apparently someone deleted it and cited a general article on Criteria for Inclusion, almost none of which was pertinent. Without further specification, it seems that the concern was

"Note:# Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry)."

The word sunyata, like karma and nirvana (from which it is linked), is used in English discussion, albeit not as widely. In other words, it is like, if not spaghetti, certainly it is like rigatoni.

Procedural, if one or more editors believe sunyata does not meet CFI, I would request a seven day minimum RFD discussion thread, thank you. Geof Bard 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not RFD; this is RFV; and the proof is in the pudding. If you want the senses to stay, provide 3 proper citations for each.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know what this is and is not. Thank you. Maybe I should have posted this as a request for comments in the Tea Room since I apparently have the burden of providing the verifications. Didn't think there would be any harm asking others to contribute verifications. Since when are deletions just made arbitrarily without notice and without the seven day discussion, anyway? I am being patient with the process here, which violates it's own practice as well as its own posted rules. If sunyata should be deleted, so should alfredo and nirvana. All I ask is the seven days of discussion rather than deletion-without-notice. Geof Bard 19:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI" part of his deletion summary was not really the reason for deletion; it was that it had a Sanskrit language header but it was in Latin script. It should be okay now.

When administrators delete a page, they have the option of selecting the reason from a drop-down list of reasons. As a result, sometimes the reasons are unclear or vague when they don't think that hard as to which reason really applies. It happens that there's nothing in CFI about using the wrong script, but he probably assumed there was somewhere. I've done that myself on occasion. In this case, he added an extra note in the deletion summary so that's how you can know the problem.

If you're ever unsure why an entry was deleted, you can always ask an administrator such as me (or better still the deleting administrator) for clarification. If you still think that it was deleted in error, you can post on WT:BP or a similar forum.

—Internoob (Disc•Cont)18:59, 26 February 2011 reposted from UserTalk by third party

1 (UTC)

RFV Annuled Withdrawn by Original Requesting Editor RENEWED by New Requesting Editor User:Ruakh The entry existed unchallenged under an alternate spelling (shunyata and no third party requested verification. Administrator Internoob, who presumably can see the deleted entry, stated the issue "was that it had a Sanskrit language header but was in Latin script". That same admin stated "it should be ok now." That language substantially closes the RFV, if it had been valid in the first place. However, it was based upon the erroneous presumption that the deletion was for other reasons. Additionally, six citations have been placed on the sunyata entry, three for each sense. (Note, this is not a closure-by-Non-Admin, it is a revocation by the Requster. . Geof Bard 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No annulments granted once the RfV has been consummated by discussion, except to especially generous cash donors to WMF. The citations do not all seem to be from durably archived sources. The definitions appear tendentious as well, not necessarily corresponding to, say, newspaper usage of the term. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RFV's are sometimes annuled by request; but only if no-one objects; if someone does, they can simply add back the rfv tag and start again. The more I read this debate, the less I understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This started when SemperBlotto deleted the entry sunyata because it had a Sanskrit header and was written in Latin script. Then Geof added it again and inquired here and on my talk page (at almost the same time) as to why it was deleted without discussion. I see that he has reposted what I said on my talk page above and I stand by that. It should be alright assuming that it is attestable, which I have no reason to doubt that it is. [1] —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah I appreciate all the comments. Problem - deleted pages not visible to non-admins, so we have to guess what was deleted and why, specifically. I thought by the time I wrote sunyata I had learned from Bodhipathapradīpa but not sure. Just going by what the deletion citation was, it looked like a matter of demonstrating English usage. But after citing six, and I don't see that they are necessarily so non "durable", I noticed the same word shunyata which, like most words, does not have citations. So, whatever people want to do but if anyone serious thinks it is rfd please template it thanks. Geof Bard 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Ruakh renewed the RFV? I think that this edit was only a notice to readers that this discussion existed on this page. Did he say somewhere else that he wanted to? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but I hereby say so. The entry is a total mess, and valid, formatted, linkified quotations will help determine which parts of the entry need to be fixed and which parts need to be axed. (They will also help with the fixing of the former parts.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that Ruakh actually does some of the work not just whining but with five quotations, surely some of them are "valid", as compared to zero quotations at shunyata. What is the big deal about this particular entry, there are hundreds of thousands of entries which are not nearly as well documented - for instance karma, which only has one example quote, not a citation; nothingness, no quotes, no citations; Zeit: no quotes, no citations. Geof Bard 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Anyone can RFV any entry. (2) Surely some of them are valid doesn't cut it. All of the citations should follow CFI and be appropriately formatted. (3) Generally citations will not be demanded for words that can obviously meet CFI. Karma, nothingness, Zeit, all are words that probably have a hundred thousand possible valid citations. RFVing them won't do any good. For this entry, it's not obvious without cites that it will pass CFI, at least to me, and even if it does, there's a question of whether all the definitions do, and whether all definitions are clearly distinct.--Prosfilaes 02:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Śūnyatā

Originally a separate section; moved here. - -sche (discuss) 06:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cited. That was hard —Internoob 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)