|
In the sense of "A Japanese manufacturer known for its games consoles, founded in 1989." This nomination is a result of a previous RFD now archived to the talk page.
Keep. In my opinion the word is in the English lexicon as the name of the company as well. DAVilla 06:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sense; the company can & should be mentioned in the Etymology section, but a company name as such is not dictionary material, just as personal names are not. Such senses provide no particular value to users, and are arguably detrimental to the long-term health of the project. -- Visviva 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's some pretty blatant abuse, DAVilla. The original nomination was for that. The second (afterthought) sense had that whole vote for its benefit, but the first was the cause of the original listing - now relisted - for what? To obfuscate the conversation more? The tenuous vote that presumably allows this to stay came from your WT:VOTE (to game the system further) laced with numerous deceptions resulting in a bogus vote, leaving en.wiktionary exposed to massive spam (presumably from newcomer's confusion) so that Wiktionary can follow no other reasonable dictionary on the convention of simply excluding companies and products? And now, when I (the last hold-out) get complacent, finally showing signed of at least partially accepting the conclusion of the bogus vote, you do this? And why did you shuffle off the "archive" in the old format? By plastering that around on talk pages, it gets a second life as SPAM. I hope this is not what you'd call "cooperation" or "collaboration." --Connel MacKenzie 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In a community as small as ours, there is a natural tendency for every discussion to become personal, but this is not especially constructive. So let's stay off the ad-hominems, please. On the matter of archiving, if we're going to (grudgingly) accept the new system of archiving to history rather than Talk, you need to (grudgingly) accept that some of us find this less than optimal and would prefer to retain Talk-page archives for those discussions which seem likely to remain relevant. -- Visviva 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I am quite relieved that we now, finally, have a semi-automated archiving scheme in place, and somewhat surprised too because I didn't think anyone had seriously taken up the project, which wasn't a light one by any means. And Connel is right because we should not keep talk pages when the entry does not warrant inclusion either (because of search engines, at the very least). If I put this in the wrong place, very simply it's because I didn't know where to put it, and it had to go somewhere or there would be two Nintendo headers on this page. Connel, by all means, correct my mistake. DAVilla 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The RFD was for the entire entry, and both senses existed at that time. My primary goal was to resolve that RFD. In fact I thought I was doing you a favor by listing for deletion the counterpart of what you had only "partially accept[ed] the conclusion" of keeping. I wouldn't call nominating something you want deleted to be abuse at all, although I will grant you that I am blatantly pushing the envelope by voting to keep. According to our CFI, this shouldn't have a definition line. Hence I would be very much content with removal to the etymology if there isn't consensus either way, and even that should be brought to question if there is consensus to delete. Judging from the last RFD that might be the case. On the other hand, I had seen someone, I think Encyclopetey, support keeping the company name in one instance because the brand name was also kept, so it's worth getting some feedback on the issue.
- Getting somewhat off topic, I still don't know why you are so hostile against me on the brand names vote. The previous vote, which would have let in a number of entries more, looked like it might pass 13-6-1 until after a few weeks' wait I went ahead and killed it, offering to withdraw my vote, specifically so that the criteria could be tightened, which if you compare the two versions is exactly what was done: I added extra restrictions and improved community support to an 11-3-2 margin. And for this I'm accused of "gam[ing] the system" and "numerous deceptions". Connel, convince me it wouldn't be a waste of time and I'll grant you a recall and a revote. It would be enough for me if you, Williamsayers, or Dmcdevit can find one other (whitelisted or at least regular) contributor who's opposed, or someone who voted in favor who is no longer, or someone who would like to have voted but somehow missed the chance. But if it really has the communtiy support, then stop trying to use that as a bargaining chip.
- Nominations like this have the purpose of guaging community opinion. If you want to pursuade the community to delete, do it without attacking me. DAVilla 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I am obviously very confused by this re-listing and apologize for the "attack." I still don't understand why you thought the previous discussion was irrelevant to the notion of the single sense being moved from a definition line, to the etymology. --Connel MacKenzie 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't apologize, just please stop attacking and/or "attacking" me on that vote. I know it didn't go perfectly well, but it isn't misleading to say it has community support. Or if it really doesn't then let's see about it.
- I know you've copied discussion when relisting, but with this being for a narrower scope, I was trying to avoid confusion. Yes it is relevant insofar as Williamsayers is of like mind and would vote to delete every definition from the page as well as the page itself. Dmol we can't assume the same of since he voted in favor of the first brand names proposal and, considering the changes to CFI since, may or may not support this sense. DAVilla 07:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete entry. This is not generic like, say kleenex. If you talk about a "Nintendo," you are not talking about any game system. I'm sure some quotes from morons can be dug up - that isn't the point. When one refers to a "Nintendo," they are referring to an electronic game made by that particular manufacturer - which, like all similar products, is not even interchangeable with any other. In that respect, this entry always was and always will be SPAM. --Connel MacKenzie 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean that you would also support deleting the sense, if the entry is retained? -- Visviva 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. --Connel MacKenzie 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete sense The company sense should be deleted, it belongs on 'pedia, however the games console sense should remain as it is not a straight meaning. (It is, I suppose, and abbreviation of Nintendo 64, Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo. etc.etc.). Though I do note that we have Microsoft as a company, and I see no harm in having that as a meaning, with the definition being a link to the 'pedia article. Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain Microsoft had been on RFD before. Do we have archived discussion of the nomination(s)? DAVilla 07:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see "rfd" in any of the comments in the entry's history. It gets mentioned a lot in other discussions, but no one ever got around to actually nominating it. [1]. <mostly joking> I could, if you'd like.</joke> --Connel MacKenzie 08:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Undid your <small> to reply to it.) Actually, please do nominate Microsoft. It would be another good test case, since it is only a company name, and there are no products associated with it. DAVilla 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge senses. It has enough references to keep, though all capitalized, which is odd. The extra company information isn't necessary. I agree with the deletes to an extent and I'm not going to fight for its preservation. If kept, it really only needs one sense and let the encyclopedia give the corporate history, etc.--Halliburton Shill 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed to etymology and resubmitted to RFD. DAVilla 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
