Talk:bubble

RFV discussion: July–August 2019

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

bubble

Rfv-sense "(transitive) to encase in a bubble". Seems reasonable, but it's not easily searchable and was added with quotations that are not reliably archived. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"Enclose" would seem more likely than "encase". This looks like a job for the OED, followed up by OR. DCDuring (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

hi, why was the Abby Hatcher quotation added by the IP editor removed? aren't TV shows implied to be durably archived per WT:SEA? --Habst (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Implied by what? TV shows are not usually durably archived by anyone. In the cases they are "archived" they are usually locked away in vaults where they are prone to catching on fire or destroyed when they become an inconvenience. Anyway, you can't "imply" something is durably archived, it either is or it isn't. DTLHS (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

i'm sorry for not being more specific, here is the quote from that page: "Media resources such as YouTube, intended for online use only, are not considered durably archived. If the material is taken from another source, such as a movie or television show, cite the original source."

i thought this implies that TV shows can be durably archived, because it offers an alternative to non-durably-archived YouTube, and there would be no point in offering an alternative that is also not durably archived. aside from being internally archived as you mention, Abby Hatcher is also available on demand from several independent distributors, so i think it should at the very least be listed. --Habst (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

also, i think whether something is durably archived can often be a matter of debate, and it is not a "black or white" dichotomy. that's why we should discuss it here, to establish consensus. --Habst (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not try to put it in the Internet Archive? Let's see what the copyright holders say about that. DCDuring (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

i agree that's something we should think about, but many books quoted here are under copyright protection as well. i don't think whether a work is copyrighted or not should be relevant for its viability as an attestation -- otherwise we would only be able to quote from freely licensed works which isn't the case on wiktionary. --Habst (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only should we think about, we should do it.

The situation with print works is quite different. If the copyright holders don't object to what Google does, then, as a practical matter, we have fair use protection for the brief excerpts from the books, journals, etc that we use. If the work is in fact available in print, then the idea is that there will be a library somewhere that has the physical book or journal. For online-only works the Internet archive gives us a way of preserving citations. I think we need to accept Internet Archive as durable if we are to use online-only material. One question in my mind is whether they are willing to deal with audio and video material. YouTube material has often been uploaded illegally and gets taken down by Google once the copyright owner's legitimate claim has been verified. We need some way of confirming that a TV show, film, lyric, has actually been durably archived (and that any transcript is accurate). We certainly can't rely on what an individual claims to have heard. The number of erroneous attributions of quotes, erroneous quotes (eg, "Play it again, Sam"), and mondegreens should give anyone pause about the value of individual recall. DCDuring (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, citations, especially of unusual definitions, often need a lot of context to help understand the meaning of the term in question. This is a great advantage of online resources like Google Books when a preview is available. The citations that were removed were not durably archived, not even on the Internet Archive, were ambiguous, and did not provide enough context for reader to be convinced that the meaning in the definition matched the intended meaning in the passage. DCDuring (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

i agree, actions are better than words. but videos can be used in fair use as well, see w:Category:Non-free video samples which includes even excerpts from big-budget movies which tend to be the most protecting of their "intellectual property". in this specific case, the referenced episode "Princess Flug's Pet Slug" is available online free of cost, though i don't think cost should be a factor in this (because i think it would be allowed to quote a book here that is only sold in stores and isn't available on Google Books). but if you want context and you do not want to pay for it, you can scrub through that video to watch the entire episode and we could link to it in the article.

i also agree with you that internet archive should count as a durable medium. one day, i'd like to request a vote to change that policy. --Habst (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

by the way, the quote can be found at 3:25 on the video. in my opinion it is clear this is the imperative of the verb sense "to blow a bubble" rather than the encasing sense in the RFV. --Habst (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that TV shows are not durably archived, especially today. TV episodes are published much in the same manner as books; without change. I've cited television episodes on multiple entries and I see no problem with it. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"TV episodes are published much in the same manner as books"? In what universe is that true? 90% of the TV shows from 50 years ago are now completely unavailable and 50 years from now most contemporary TV shows will be similarly gone. This is why we should stop using the phrase "durably archived". It means nothing. We can collect quotations but we shouldn't be under any delusion that they will have long-term durability outside of the site. DTLHS (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

i agree that the situation isn't good. i also think that relying on a single proprietary distributor (Google Books) for nearly all of our book quotations, which does not publish their collection in any mirror-able manner, isn't any better than the situation of TV shows, though. TV show scripts are also useful to document colloquialisms that you'd be only likely to find in spoken word rather than premeditated written text.

also, i do not think sufficiently popular programs will ever fully disappear. even TV programs from over 50 years ago like Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In are fully archived and available on DVD today. --Habst (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What libraries hold it? DCDuring (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

LMGTFY. WorldCat lists 71 libraries for the first season.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the function of Google Books at Wiktionary. It is a wonderful resource for finding content that is durably archived in libraries, multiple libraries around the world. If someone cites a published work that Google hasn't scanned, it is valid attestation. Someone may challenge it, requiring that we confirm that, 1., the work is in fact held in libraries and, 2., that it actually contains the passage (eg, by uploading a scanned image to Commons). A Google Books citation is certainly more convenient when there is a challenge, but the durable archiving is not on Google. If there were institutions that durably archived movies, songs, TV shows in a similar way (eg, as CDs, DVDs, VCR cassettes) that would be good, though we still have the problem of verifying the correctness of transcriptions from those media into text. at least at present. DCDuring (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

i agree that isn't the primary function of GB, but i definitely do understand its purpose — it is the main thing that differentiates books from video media on WT. at my local library, there are hundreds of movies and TV shows on physica media available for borrowing categorized just like books, and i understand this is the norm at many libraries. so the institutions already exist — the problem of verification, then, can be achieved by watching online versions of the media, just like for books. --Habst (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the Rowan and Martin show, how would we have a participatory process for evaluating the context of use and therefore the meaning of a word used in that show? It would not be available on demand and it will not often occur that someone will be willing and able to upload the material. I could (and would) also challenge the accuracy of any transcription that was not available in print from a reliable source (not necessarily itself durably archived). And the transcription should include enough surrounding material to provide the context needed for interpretation. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not recall ever hearing that durably archived was limited to works in libraries. There is no obligation that access to cited works be available on demand; if someone has access to e.g. a bunch of 1950s Esperanto or Basque magazines, I would be very unhappy at opposition to use of them to cite words in those languages. Transcriptions should usually be from DVD captions or subtitles, where possible; dealing with audio is a different subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Same, which libraries anyway? A country’s libraries will always be concentrated on material of the country’s language or languages. Take as an example only the coverage of law: almost any university is unable to cover other country’s juristic writing, and that is a core part of a country’s literature in a way. And I have heard that people from South American countries travel to browse books in the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg because there the coverage of literature on the law of their country is better; no other place in Germany is that much equipped. (Who wants to go to Hamburg?) And what certainly cannot be expected is that anyone will travel. Don’t make ridiculous requirements. Still as I said on multiple occassions, the “three durable cites” is just a rule of thumb. The introductory formulation “general rule” may override. “Likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means”, or compare even the section titled “Attestion” worded “where possible, it is better to cite sources”. Where possible. If according to our resources it is not possible (and as long as nobody is paid many things are normatively impossible for the editors that are “possible” in general) but we are yet convinced that a word is around, that is in particular that we have verified it otherwise, this is no ground to exclude it. For one thing, if a word is clearly regularly encountered on the internet and this can be found with ease. Particularly one can also reasonably conjecture that there are printed quotes of words if we can access a sufficient distribution of non-durable occurences, I think here about terms using in African French or English that occur in printed material there that have not been scanned or something: Have fun “meeting WT:ATTEST” for terms mentioned and quoted in Lafage’s Le lexique français de côte d'ivoire.

And “durably archived” I have understood also as “occasionally available on the market”. You can also quote books the distribution of which is illegal in your country (it only proves that the concent is relevant). And music albums have always people who collect them. There is no reason a public institution has to do it, it can be private actors. People are necessary to keep a culture.

TV shows from 50 years ago that are now completely unavailable are also not quoted for the reason that they are now completely unavailable, this is a strawman. In the era of video-on-demand and music-on-demand every movie or album is available that somebody made money with. So while the claim might be true for movies from 1969 it is not true for movies from 2019 in 2069, unless the world has crumbled (then the libraries have too). Youtube videos only are not durable because of the unhealthy market. The monopoly Google has here in combination with copyright causes that people copy around less than they actually could, and intellectual property hampers innovation in the development of cheep storage media. Intellectual property has destroyed Western culture. Fay Freak (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose one could argue that the existence of a print run or equivalent means that there will be copies of the book (or disc) somewhere in the world, but how would one find them to confirm that the citation existed and was accurate? As a practical matter we are clearly much better off to use cites from sources that are, 1., available on line at no cost, whether from Google, WikiSource, Project Gutenberg, Biology Heritage Library, or elsewhere, AND, 2., "durably archived", whether in multiple libraries, online repositories (Usenet), or a well-funded online archive (Internet Archive?). Cites that don't meet those criteria are subject to legitimate challenge.

It is a requirement, not a suggestion, that, for "well-attested" languages, we have 3 independent, durably archived cites that use a word that fits a given definition, when the definition is challenged in RfV. The quality of our coverage of languages that are not "well-attested" will necessarily be inferior to that of well-attested languages. Similarly for languages that are politically regulated. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Poker verb sense?

At least in Internet slang, there seems to be a verb "bubble" in poker as well as the noun. Equinox ◑ 07:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Partly imitative?

What does that mean? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)