Talk:Bevis Marks
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Fay Freak in topic RFD discussion: December 2022–January 2023
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.
A street in London. I remember similar entries being contentious. Perhaps you'll enjoy debating the entryworthiness of this particular one Flackofnubs (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in the absence of any deletion rationale beyond trolling. Equinox ◑ 13:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I guess this avoided the mass nomination above by not being in Category:en:Named roads (I've added it). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- This may have been the red rag that enraged the bull. DonnanZ (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: has no figurative meaning, and so does not comply with "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines, WF is, out of devilment, only interested in sparking a debate without being concerned about whether it is deleted or not. So, as Equinox guessed, WF has given no good reason for deletion. Therefore, Keep. DonnanZ (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted. I'm afraid that is an insufficient argument for keeping the entry in view of the extremely clear policy previously adopted. If it is felt that the policy should be changed, feel free to start a discussion or vote. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Another admin needs to Speedily undelete Sgconlaw's poor decision. DonnanZ (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Unstriking. Let @Sgconlaw undo his process violation and undelete the entry. The RFD process has not finished, and editor discretion trumps policy, per long-term practice. Per WT:CFI, "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." The quoted sentence was supposed to be voted on, but one way or another that did not happen; anyone? See also User:Dan Polansky/IA § Policy override if you are so inclined. The most formal tangible evidence for editorial discretion I know of is Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn’t look like a community consensus to keep the term will form, it’s only you gaming to see whether you can create a different appearance of consensus after waiting five days with no one voicing disagreement. WT:CFI says “Most manmade structures, including … individual roads and streets, … may only be attested through figurative use.” So Sgconlaw’s decision to delete this random-ass streetname, too insufferable even for Wonderfool (though him to give deletion rationale was expected), is correct. Fay Freak (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a "process violation" (nor a "poor decision"—on what basis?). There is a clear policy—"Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names"—that was arrived at through a formal vote which was called specifically to resolve the issue of, among other things, road name entries, and this is an entry that is not in line with that policy. It is not the "unidiomaticity" of the entry that is the issue; the entry is a road name that has no figurative meaning and so does not comply with the policy. There is little point in editors engaging in formal voting on policies if the matter has to be relitigated for each entry. By all means start another formal vote to amend the existing policy if that is what is desired, but until that has been done the policy stands. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is a process violation since policy does not trump consensus: if it did, Wiktionary never would have had hot words before they were approved, yet Wiktionary did have hot words. The same is true of translation hubs: using your logic that policy trumps consensus, Wiktionary would not have had translation hubs before they were finally formally approved years later, and yet it did have them. Therefore, the common-law principle (as opposed to statutory law) establishes that consensus trumps policy, not the other way around. Your view that CFI overrules consensus is further refuted by the 2014 vote I linked to. You ought to unstrike this nomination, undelete the entry, and let the sovereign of the English Wiktionary decide, which is we the editors, not CFI, per arguments just presented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- No. Please start a new formal vote to amend the existing policy if that is desired. It makes no sense that policies formally voted on (especially one as fundamental as WT:CFI) can simply be ignored in this way. (@Chuck Entz: as a long-time admin, feel free to advise on this.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- You pretend you did not read a single word of mine, as per lack of specific response. Unacceptable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Please start": I am not anyone's subordinate here and do not accept any commands or imperatives; you ought to desist from using this phrasing going forward. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dan Polansky: obviously it is a suggestion, not an order. If you do not desire to start a formal vote, then don't. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is an imperative. A suggestion: "It might be a good idea to do X"; "you may want to do X", and the like. (What's new about consensus? Still 50%-majority, by the "usual" meaning of it, as you say?) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dan Polansky: obviously it is a suggestion, not an order. If you do not desire to start a formal vote, then don't. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- No. Please start a new formal vote to amend the existing policy if that is desired. It makes no sense that policies formally voted on (especially one as fundamental as WT:CFI) can simply be ignored in this way. (@Chuck Entz: as a long-time admin, feel free to advise on this.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Put differently, Sgconlaw closure is an attempt at an anti-constitutional revolutionary coup, where the constitution, like the Britain's one, is an unwritten one and involves long-term established practices of which ample evidence is on record spanning years. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- As for "Doesn’t look like a community consensus to keep the term will form": I see 2 boldface keeps. And consensus to keep does not need to form; consensus to delete needs to form. Speculations about process outcomes are no substitute for a process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Whether Bevis Marks is worthy of inclusion or not, I feel Sgconlaw's behaviour here was irrational and uncharacteristic, and the decision, which goes against usual RFD procedure, should be reverted. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- We have used speedy deletions before, for example, for self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds when they are clearly against policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- But in the case you quote, there were no boldface keeps, so speedy was at least plausible. Of course, per long-term text in the RFD header, a RFD discussion should be open for at least a week, but that was changed via a coup in 2021 or 2022 (I don't remember which year). By contrast, here, you deleted an item over two boldface keeps. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- No substantial reason contrary to WT:CFI has been provided for the "keep" votes. Claiming that the nominator has not provided a sufficient reason for deletion isn't enough when it is clear that the entry violates CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- You still keep on pretending to have not heard a single word of mine. I showed the common law to be that consensus trumps policy, not the other way around, and you did not address that. An entry that clearly does not meet CFI can be kept if there is consensus to do so; thus, an entry that met the hot word standard was kept even when CFI did not cover the hot word standard. And the reader does not need to trust me on that; it is all on record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- No substantial reason contrary to WT:CFI has been provided for the "keep" votes. Claiming that the nominator has not provided a sufficient reason for deletion isn't enough when it is clear that the entry violates CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- But in the case you quote, there were no boldface keeps, so speedy was at least plausible. Of course, per long-term text in the RFD header, a RFD discussion should be open for at least a week, but that was changed via a coup in 2021 or 2022 (I don't remember which year). By contrast, here, you deleted an item over two boldface keeps. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- We have used speedy deletions before, for example, for self-evident "attributive form of" definitions for hyphenated compounds when they are clearly against policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Whether Bevis Marks is worthy of inclusion or not, I feel Sgconlaw's behaviour here was irrational and uncharacteristic, and the decision, which goes against usual RFD procedure, should be reverted. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is a process violation since policy does not trump consensus: if it did, Wiktionary never would have had hot words before they were approved, yet Wiktionary did have hot words. The same is true of translation hubs: using your logic that policy trumps consensus, Wiktionary would not have had translation hubs before they were finally formally approved years later, and yet it did have them. Therefore, the common-law principle (as opposed to statutory law) establishes that consensus trumps policy, not the other way around. Your view that CFI overrules consensus is further refuted by the 2014 vote I linked to. You ought to unstrike this nomination, undelete the entry, and let the sovereign of the English Wiktionary decide, which is we the editors, not CFI, per arguments just presented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a "process violation" (nor a "poor decision"—on what basis?). There is a clear policy—"Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Place names"—that was arrived at through a formal vote which was called specifically to resolve the issue of, among other things, road name entries, and this is an entry that is not in line with that policy. It is not the "unidiomaticity" of the entry that is the issue; the entry is a road name that has no figurative meaning and so does not comply with the policy. There is little point in editors engaging in formal voting on policies if the matter has to be relitigated for each entry. By all means start another formal vote to amend the existing policy if that is what is desired, but until that has been done the policy stands. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn’t look like a community consensus to keep the term will form, it’s only you gaming to see whether you can create a different appearance of consensus after waiting five days with no one voicing disagreement. WT:CFI says “Most manmade structures, including … individual roads and streets, … may only be attested through figurative use.” So Sgconlaw’s decision to delete this random-ass streetname, too insufferable even for Wonderfool (though him to give deletion rationale was expected), is correct. Fay Freak (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or keep deleted or whatever per Sgconlaw. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Deleted. I would note that speedy deletes are allowed, though I wouldn't have done so myself in this case. As for Dan, everything he says can be discounted by his own precedent of doing so to WF: like WF, he is a formerly-banned user who likes to play games. @Dan Polansky: you were blocked for a reason, and you don't seem to have learned anything. Please stop being contentious and disruptive. You're on very thing ice here: IMO you shouldn't be closing anything that's not an obvious snowball slam-dunk. You are not RFVE's Supreme Court. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- LOL: I prefer Dan to WF. But I don't want to give him a swelled head. DonnanZ (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I was blocked in 2022 for fabricated reasons, as I documented on my talk page. There was talk about "POINTING", where there was obviously none. As for closing RFDs (not RFVs) today, I am closing them in keeping with approved policy, and I have years-long history of uncontested closures of RFDs, and the only closures that were contested were in 2022 by a certain editor who likes to pick fight with me; the closures I made were then reclosed to the same effect as I did. I recommend anyone to review the closures I made today and examine them on policy substance to see whether there is any issue with them; I believe there is none. Also, since I have not seen Chuck Entz do any RFD closures for years (not even the other editor who likes to attack me), we have no idea what kind of closures Chuck Entz would like to see, or the other editor. "RFVE's Supreme Court": again, not RFV; more inaccuracy from Chuck Entz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- "like WF, he is a formerly-banned user who likes to play games": to liken me to Wonderfool in any way is a top of insolent rudeness from Chuck Entz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- (weak) Keep deleted - this should've been kept open for a bit longer to see if idiomatic uses could be found but I can't see it passing if it is reopened. The unusual name and etymology of this street name, relating to the mark(boundary) of land owned by the abbots of Bury St Edmunds and not, as one might suspect, a Jewish surname (Marks/Marx) along with the historical significance of the street means that it would be a shame to keep this deleted but that's just the way it is. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW I would support having an appendix space for compiling etymological info for toponyms that don't pass CFI (though it would probably need its own looser CFI). Place name dictionaries that focus on etymology are a thing, much like thesauruses. For my own part, I vote keep deleted. While I think Sg's decision was probably hasty, this is not a significant street in London and it's unlikely on the face of it that there is any figurative use, and nobody has suggested one. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- The question of whether the string Bevis Marks has a figurative meaning associated with it is an RFV issue strictly speaking, but if we're only talking about the literal street name, we of course have to delete it under our current policies. The point that @Overlordnat1 and @Al-Muqanna have raised does have merit in my eyes and perhaps it's even worth considering amending our CFI to include attested place names that would otherwise fail the CFI but have interesting etymologies (for a sufficiently robust definition of interesting). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Fytcha: Technically, I think that the most reason why certain kinds of structures have been categorized as allowed and others as usually disallowed (the wording of the CFI shrewdly says “most” of them are) is that one group of places has typically “interesting” historical development and thus origins and variation of meaning to describe while other structures are arbitrarily named by city councils or other bureaucrats after their favourite rappers or prostitutes, for blank utility, in which individual buildings are even similar to individual persons. So your consideration is already part of the CFI. As a rule of thumb, the inclusionworthiness of a place depends on whether its whole existence as a concept has been invented on file. Fay Freak (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)