Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/2024-11/Updating COALMINE rule

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
< Wiktionary:Votes
Archived revision by MedK1 (talk | contribs) as of 00:43, 16 December 2024.

Updating COALMINE rule

Voting on:

  • Changing the following at WT:CFI:

Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion;

to

Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words may be included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion;

Effect:

  • The vote seeks to reduce the authority of the COALMINE rule by revoking its status as a voted-upon policy.
  • The COALMINE criterion would, however, remain at WT:IDIOM along with all the other tests.
  • Thus, the COALMINE rule would no longer be able to grant the power of overriding any decision for deletion of an entry reached by WT:RFD, but it may still be used as a point for consideration in the RFD discussions.

Schedule:

Previous votes:

Discussions:

Support

  1. Support as proposer. – Svārtava (tɕ) 12:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support because the COALMINE rule is currently a loophole that allows some SoP entries. --Davi6596 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — A miner but important change: this will make it easier for borderline/possible SOP terms to be discussed on a case-by-case basis by our editors at RfD as this policy will no longer automatically guarantee their inclusion. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I find Svartva’s proposed alternatives to COALMINE very convincing. Further, I’d like to see Wiktionary either completely include prefixed terms (e.g., words with non-, even if there isn’t a corresponding closed form) or completely exclude them (even if there is a closed form) — I’d support the former. Polomo47 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like to add something: yes, rescinding COALMINE as a policy will lead to more word-by-word discussion. However, the scenario isn’t clear-cut enough for us to determine all words of the type should be included, and this fact is evident precisely because there are people against doing so. Even if you dislike having to discuss, you should dislike the alternative more. Polomo47 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be clear-cut enough as it is, but it's still more clear-cut than it would be if COALMINE was removed as a policy, and, thus, the alternative (keeping COALMINE a policy) is more likeable than demoting COALMINE from policyhood is. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 02:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that it shouldn't be clear-cut. There's a reason people are supporting this overruling, and it's because COALMINE singlehandedly supports words that people don't want to include in the dictionary: voting support is allowing people to express their opinion on a word-by-word basis. There is nothing inherently positive about “consistency”. Polomo47 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support It would not, unlike oppose vote 4 feared, and has already been overly dogmatically assumed an entailment of the postcoronavirus internet word inclusion, require word-by-word discussion, but idiomaticity, though it could be believed to provoke word-by-word discussions: which we already have in spite of it, to no conclusion, as linked in the deletion discussion. The reflexibilization reduces complexity and increases rule convincingness by removing an exception to the rule, inviting people to consider the actual worth of an inclusion, which depends on substantial reasons beyond hyphenation: anti-Hamas and un-English have their camel-Kebab-Case spelling styles because of representing identities, the former even more so in the former case because speakers have an internalized preference against or there is no standard about Greek-Arabic hybridisms, and I don’t see why anticatholic or postcommunist are worthier of inclusion, or why the well-known designation ex-Muslim isn’t. Some people are exWiktionarians because of extensive interpretation of the present rule in foreign languages which don’t uses spaces or any delimiters in compounds that much. The rule, in accordance with current knowledge, is cum grano salis. It also makes people preoccupied with attempts to single out unhyphenated and unspaced spellings from corpora. Fay Freak (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I would like a more robust solution in the future that abandons the COALMINE standard. Until then, this is a good step forward. Imetsia (talk (more)) 22:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Not much of a change, but automatic inclusion upon finding three professional editors incompetent/underpaid/drunk enough to write “tall tree” without a space is, indeed, too strong. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! Love your reasoning, made me grin slightly :) Polomo47 (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Some flexibility is probably a good thing, and I imagine that the small amount of extra discussion the change may require will be worthwhile. Cnilep (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support "Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake! It's a piece of cake, cake, cake, cake, cake!" Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 00:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose since the current policy seems to be working OK so far. While current criteria for inclusion may not be perfect, I think the RFD process is even more imperfect, so I don't think it's beneficial to make it so Wiktionary's CFI rules are less definite and require more word-by-word discussion to resolve questions of inclusion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English already has a huge backlog.--Urszag (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I feel that one of this project's strengths is that we have relatively concrete criteria for inclusion (CFI's "three uses" principle, etc). These inflexible criteria are sometimes frustrating, because although they lead to good outcomes in a broad majority of cases, one occasionally has to accept that a "good entry" will be deleted or a "bad entry" will be kept. COALMINE is sometimes like this. But, in my view, the benefit of these "hard" rules identified by Urszag - that they reduce the need for "word-by-word discussion to resolve questions of inclusion" - outweighs the disadvantage of the occasional frustrating or perverse outcome. One only needs to look at Wikipedia and endless debates over notability to convince oneself of this.
    Moreover, I find the original motivation for enacting COALMINE still quite convincing:

    If we delete coal mine and a user searches for it and finds coalmine, (s)he will be under the impression that coalmine is the most common spelling of this, which is untrue.

    I haven't heard anyone propose a way to mitigate this issue. This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In such cases, it could just be put as {{alternative spelling of|en|[[coal]] [[mine]]}}. [For clarification, the coal mine entry is not in particular a target of this proposal.]
    I don't like some SOP entries like non-Canadian being saved by a nonstandard closed form nonCanadian despite being deleted by RFD. If this vote fails, for uniformity/consistency, it may be worth looking into Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September#Including hyphenated prefixed words as single words and include all non-, pro-, anti-, etc. prefixed words, per WT:NOTPAPER. – Svārtava (tɕ) 14:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Svartava okay, true. But there is no visual distinction between
    Alternative spelling of coal mine
    and
    Alternative spelling of coal mine
    , which is a really poor user experience. We might need a specific template to do this job along the lines of {{&lit}}, like
    Less common spelling of coal mine: see coal, mine.
    I also want to expand on my rationale. In my view, this vote (weakening COALMINE) is actually worse than repealing COALMINE altogether. Upon inspection, it's become clear to me that many prominent COALMINE'd terms, including coal mine itself, would be keepable as WT:THUBs. Perhaps THUB is now doing the job that COALMINE was intended to do, albeit via a very different route. If users feel that COALMINE allows the inclusion of too many unworthy entries, there may no longer be a need to keep it, provided we can come up with a good way to format the entries of the single-word forms. I'm willing to be persuaded. This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other
    • Creating a template {{coalmine}} similar to {{&lit}} is a good idea and a good way to format the entries of the single-word forms in my opinion if this vote passes and we get to see a closed-form entry without the corresponding open-form entry.
    • There have been 2 earlier votes on repealing COALMINE altogether but all failed by huge opposing majority.
    • The job you say sounds similar to what Dan Polansky brought in the last vote: from my experience [COALMINE] often has us keep terms that I would instinctively like to keep for other reasons, which are harder to investigate and articulate and you seem to suggest that THUB could also do this.
    • I actually suspect that THUB is sometimes applied more than it should, for example non-Aryan is supposed to be saved by THUB, but all of the translations are just negative prefix + [translation of Aryan], and WT:THUB says: A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is: a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term.
    – Svārtava (tɕ) 09:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per This, that and the other. 0DF (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per everyone above - and the original motivation quoted by This, that and the other is even stronger in certain cases.

    If we delete coal mine and a user searches for it and finds coalmine, they'll be under the mistaken impression that coalmine is the more-common form. But all that might reasonably happen there is that they might start preferentially using a less-common, but still-perfectly-acceptable, form.

    In contrast, if we delete trans woman (which, on a purely technical level, would probably be SoP without COALMINE), and a user searches for it and finds transwoman, they're gonna think transwoman is the more-common form, and probably be encouraged to use it - at which point we've misled a reader into using a form that's not just less common by quite a wide margin, but actively proscribed in common use and widely considered offensive. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other, @0DF, and @Whoop whoop pull up, I think y'all misunderstood the proposal: it doesn't make COALMINE useless or get rid of it, it just puts the COALMINE and SoP rules at the same level. As Svartava said, "[...] it may still be used as a point for consideration in the RFD discussions."
    So, if there's a good reason, e.g. the case of trans woman and transwoman (and maybe coal mine and coalmine), we should still apply COALMINE. But, in cases like the one of non-Canadian and nonCanadian, we shouldn't apply it. Davi6596 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davi6596: I maintain my position because, as Urszag wrote, “I don't think it's beneficial to make it so Wiktionary's CFI rules are less definite and require more word-by-word discussion to resolve questions of inclusion”. 0DF (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Urszag: Just for curiosity, would you support a proposal to consider words with non-, pro-, anti-, etc. (or any known productive prefix, or just those) SoP? Davi6596 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davi6596: That'd have to include a proviso allowing for the retention of entries for compounds with those prefixes which're nevertheless idiomatic in their own right, such as non-avian dinosaur, pro-choice, or anti-air. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 02:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nonaligned, etc. are closed terms without hyphen or space separating the components, I don't think they are affected by the SOP policy. I believe the question was regarding hyphenated formations with those prefixes. – Svārtava (tɕ) 04:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, right. Edited. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 07:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Whoop whoop pull up: Yeah, I forgot to add "unidiomatic hyphenated". If the word in question is hyphenated but not idiomatic, it's just a combination of the stem's meaning with the prefix's, e.g. pro-Israel = pro- ("supporting") + Israel = "supporting Israel" (which the entry literally gives). As you can see, it's clearly SoP.
    BTW, I just saw that WT:SOP mentions ex-teacher as an example of SoP: "Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds in the same way as to spaced phrases. For example, wine-lover, green-haired, harsh-sounding and ex-teacher are all excluded as they mean no more than the sum of their parts", so the vote would just reinforce what's already part of official policy.
    Finally, if it isn't hyphenated, it can't be SoP (e.g. illegal, from il- +‎ legal by surface analysis). Davi6596 (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davi6596 Presumably the hyphenated forms of terms that also exist in unhyphenated form would still be allowed even under such a policy (as altforms of said unhyphenated forms). Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 19:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not be in favor of any proposal to have a policy that says words starting with non-, pro-, anti-, etc. "may be included"--this is practically meaningless. A useful policy would define which words should be included and which ones shouldn't.--Urszag (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @0DF I agree 100%. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I fully understand the proposal, and, while it doesn't guarantee the deletion of entries which would be considered SoP but for COALMINE, it still removes the barrier preventing the deletion of such entries... and, thus, leads to the aforementioned dangers regarding terms like [trans woman / transwoman]. Whoop whoop pull up ♀️ Bitching Betty 🏳️‍⚧️ Averted crashes ⚧️ 02:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose This seems miswritten. I think what you're trying to do is eliminate entries that you consider SoP but are being kept because our current SoP rules consider closed compounds inherently non-SoP. But this change wouldn't allow for the deletion of more "coalmine" forms, it would allow for the deletion of more "coal mine" forms while keeping their corresponding "coalmine" forms.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what I'm trying to do. I am trying to eliminate entries like non-Canadian which are fully SOP (since non- is a very productive prefix too) but are saved by nonCanadian. There are many entries like this which we can't delete or RFD because COALMINE is a voted policy. – Svārtava (tɕ) 04:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think nonCanadian should stay? Because your phrasing makes no provision for the deletion of such entries. Simplificationalizer (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can stay, being marked as non-standard, in the format TTO wrote above. But also, this entry was created specifically to be used as a COALMINE for non-Canadian, so it is likely that the number of such entries would also go down. – Svārtava (tɕ) 05:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. What Svartava fails to realise is closed compounds such as coalmine and railway are sums of parts. Unfortunately most users take it out of context. And non-Canadian is a necessity as Canadian has a capital C; Svartava may also be unaware that the non- prefix in British English is used with a hyphen, such as in non-essential, non-existent etc. Omitting the hyphen is an American trait. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    coalmine, nonessential is definitely SOP - but we don't delete closed SOP compounds in English, that applies to hyphenated and spaced compounds only. – Svārtava (tɕ) 12:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COALMINE is sometimes used as a get out of jail free card, which isn't strictly ethical, but used by some to save a term from deletion. Usually the term shouldn't be deleted anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose i think COALMINE is a bad policy that happens to fix some problems with a different bad policy (SOP). We can't address one without the other, as it's like ripping a bandage off a wound before it's healed. —Soap— 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose: I frankly don't know how this affects other languages outside of English (other than Yorùbá, but we kinda just follow other sources), and so, I'm not sure if I could support this proposal without that knowledge. AG202 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AG202: This would practically affect only those languages in which COALMINE is frequently used (primarily English I think), because there are many languages for which COALMINE is not relevant, such as languages written without spaces, languages that readily form closed SOP compounds rather than open/hyphenated (like Sanskrit or German), etc. A working community consensus even if unwritten is likely to remain as it is. – Svārtava (tɕ) 08:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I don't have a problem with entries like non-Canadian existing. We aren't a book limited by the number of pages, and I just do not see the big deal over having these types of words. I'd prefer to err on the side of including more words, rather than having a policy that might deter people from adding words because they're unsure/anxious over whether it would just get deleted. Megathonic (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Whoop whoop pull up and Megathonic. Binarystep (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Megathonic and the premise of including forms of entries we already have. J3133 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose MedK1 (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. Abstain --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2024-11/Updating_COALMINE_rule&oldid=83055247"