Wiktionary: Deletion archive

From open-dictionary.com - the free dictionary.

This page includes some of the more significant discussions relating to pages that were deleted through this process. Where articls were retained the discussion has been moved to the talk page for the article.

---

Table of contents

1 A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ... 2 The Bjorn 3 Progressive_and_accumulative_spiritual_intelligence_of_the_universe 4 starfrosh, starfrosck 5 pr0n

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ...

• Request to delete this was made by User:Blade Hirato on August 10 on the page itself without noting it here. I agree with him in that this phrase does not have any special meaning other than what one would have from a normal reading. Eclecticology 06:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hm, I would have said "delete", but I believe this phrase has entered the language somewhat. If examples of usage other than in the opening titles of Star Wars can be found, then this might be worth retaining. That said, the ellipsis ought to go. — Paul G 09:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Documenting these secondary usages can be difficult. What we now have on the article does not even say what it means. What's now in the definition really belongs in the Etymology section. Eclecticology 14:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleted. After waiting the term still has no definition, and no authority for other uses. Eclecticology 06:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Bjorn

• A group of gymnasiestudenter in Sweden have created their own religion (someone claimed they had about five members), and tries to promote it through different wikis. A number of articles connected with them have been deleted from (as far as I know) Swedish wiktionary, Swedish Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, and I think from Romanian Wikipedia as well. Beware that they are persistent! \Mike 14:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I may live to regret this, but this seems no worse than echo drawing or sealed systems(TM). Why not mark it as a neologism/protologism and keep it in? It evidently has a known etymology and meaning, and the definition given is reasonably well-formed. -dmh 15:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No need to regret just because we disagree. You are entitled to opinions. I would ditch it. I look more at globals for an example. Sealed Systems derives its legitimacy from being Trademarked and by being promoted by a formally organized company. For "The Bjorn" we should have some evidence of its usage that goes beyond the apparent invention of a group of school kids. In my University days I knew a group of guys who established the "Pismerite" religion. Their primary objective was to get tax-free communion wine. I would never seriously consider including a Wiktionary entry for "Pismerite". Eclecticology 05:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You could always contact Kammarkollegiet, http://www.kammarkollegiet.se/kk.html. They should have records of every REAL religious group in Sweden.
      • Please, what is a "real" religious group? A group entitled to collect "membership fees" the same way as Svenska kyrkan, through skatteverket? No, I think we have to use usual common sense together with some "estimate" of public interest. \Mike
        • I don't think that it's up to those of us here to try to search on a Swedish websitew. The least we could expect there is a precise link that mentions the concept. As yet there is no article about this religion on the en:Wikipedia, and no article on the se:Wiktionary. When at least one of those has been found acceptable we should certainly reconsider any decision to delte this item. Eclecticology 12:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I thought that the whole point of the "protologism" designation was to allow people to suggest words that aren't in use but maybe ought to be. Given that, it seems that we should be liberal in accepting entries, so long as

          1. They're well-formed and not encyclopedic or POV, just like any other entry.
          2. They're clearly marked as not in wide use.

          There have certainly been several borderline entries lately, and I'm not sure that the existence of a few web pages should make that much difference. In this particular case, there would be a corresponding entry in Wikipedia, had they not been actively removed. I'm not complaining about Wikipedia policy, but neither would I put too much weight on the presence or absence of a Wikipedia article. Again, the question here is not whether "The Bjorn" is in current use -- evidently it isn't. The question is whether to allow not-widely-used words as entries -- and evidently we do. -dmh 16:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

        • I don't think that this one even meets the basic criteria for inclusion on the protologism page, particularly the one about a need for the term. I know that there is a group at Wikipedia that is overzealous about deleting material, but is there some alternate site that explains the use of this term and its underlying theology? The inventor of the term is not even clearly identified. Just as Wikipedia should not be the place for original research, so too should Wiktionary become the authority that gives legitimacy to such an unneeded new word. Eclecticology 00:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Deleted. Eclecticology 17:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Deleted again. Eclecticology 18:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Progressive_and_accumulative_spiritual_intelligence_of_the_universe

• I've no idea what this is supposed to be. — Paul G 15:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Also Transcendentalism Today, Religious Rationality in the 21st Century, Religious rationality, Collective spiritual knowledge and Spiritual unity.

  • It is the definition of "God" according to Transcendentalism Today.
  • These are not dictionary entries. Wikipedia and/or Wikibooks are more appropriate places for attempts to explain their theology. Eclecticology 17:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that most of these should go, but I've amended Transcendentalism Today, provided that it's actually well-attested, and I argue that the transcendentalist definition of God is no worse than any other (though it could stand to be shortened). -dmh 19:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It still sounds like nothing more than the title of a promotional publication for a religious cult. Eclecticology 00:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Transcendentalism Today and Religious Rationality are well-attested.Also see spiritual unity--User:Kkawohl
      • These are only Google results. Nothing in that to show that they are proper dictionary entries. It is not our task to do marketting for a religion. Eclecticology 00:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Be careful here. Evidently it is our task to do marketing for random companies and artists (TeamSpeak, Sealed Systems and echo drawing again come to mind). Googling "Transcendentalism Today" turns up on the order of 1000 hits (putting quotes around the phrase makes a difference :-). I looked through the first half-dozen or so pages. A large portion of these are authored either directly or indirectly by Kurt Kawohl -- this includes a Wikibook, a Wikiquote, and Wikipedia and Wiktionary entries in various forms. However, several, including a review of the wikibook and some exchanges on a theology website, appear independent. There don't seem to be many of these, and I'd hardly say the term is in wide usage, but by contrast, googling "Echo Drawing" turns up 83 hits, most if not all either incidental or by a single author. I don't have a strong opinion here, however my preference is to keep such entries but clearly mark them as "not widely used/in no way endorsed/etc." I certainly don't see how religion plays in. -dmh 02:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • If you review some of the Google sites that you reference you will see that Transcendentalism Today is Kawohl's own religious sect. It is shameless self-promotion. Eclecticology 09:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I did look, and I agree. Again, the argument is that shameless self-promotion has not, so far, been grounds for deleting an entry. -dmh 14:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Transcendentalism and Transcendentalism Today is an ideology and has "never" been a cult or religion; it is an application of religious rationality which many religious zealots have attempted to stifle throughout history.--User:Kkawohl
        • I'd be inclined to agree with Eclecticology. I think that Transcendentalism Today and the other entries mentioned above, TeamSpeak, Sealed Systems and echo drawing (do the TeamSpeak and Sealed Systems entries even exist anymore?), are not in wide use (and therefore of low importance as terms in the english language) and require more explanation than a dictionary article. Wikipedia would be a better place for them. IanLewis 17:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm slightly confused now. I can't find either TeamSpeak or Sealed Systems, but neither do I see them in the deletion log (maybe they've scrolled off?). From the discussion above, I thought the decision was to keep Sealed Systems, and because of that I never rfd'd TeamSpeak and I don't see that anyone else did. In any case, I'm about done talking about this. So just to be clear, here is my summary (which, naturally, is about as long as what I've said so far):
            • Transcendentalism without the "Today" is well-known, well-attested and uncontroversial (from a lexicographical standpoint). As Transcendentalism Today at least appears to be a revival of 19th-century Transcendentalism, I don't think leaving Transcendentalism Today out of Wiktionary does it great harm. However,
            • The transcendentalist definition of God should be restored. I don't see how this could be controversial. Lexicographically, there is such a thing as transcendentalism, it does define God, this definition is well-attested (though perhaps dated), and it differs significantly from other definitions. End of discussion. We have let enough other stuff in from video games, works of fiction, or whatever else that removing this definition because it is "sectarian" gives the impression, which I believe we very much wish to avoid, that such removal is a value judgement concerning transcendentalism.
            • Transcendentalism Today per se does appear to be largely the work of one person. Calling it "well-attested" is misleading, as nearly all of the attestations appear to stem from that person. On the other hand, calling it a sect and calling its entry shameless self-promotion of a sect are unhelpful statements, whether they are defensible or not.
            • From a Wiktionary standpoint, there appear to be two major approaches to these marginal entries, religious or not: 1) Remove them; 2) Leave them and mark them specially. I'm indifferent as to these two approaches, as long as they are applied reasonably consistently.
            • This is why I said I might live to regret defending "The Bjorn" -dmh 17:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • 1. Saying that Transcendentalism Today is an ideology rather than a cult or a religion, then defending the oxymoron "religious rationality" in the same sentence suggests that we are getting into the realm of semantic games.
        • A. Agreed. Religious rationality today in most religions is an oxymoron. I stated: Transcendentalism Today (like Transcendentalism) is an ideology, an "application" of religious rationality which many religious zealots have attempted to stifle throughout history.--User:Kkawohl
      • 2. Restoring the transcendentalist definition of "God" begs the question of the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Every group with some sort of vision of God will define the term in its own way, and the list could get very long. These theological distinctions are more appropriate to an encyclopedia. An understanding of what "God" means in a general context is what belongs in a dictionary. What is there in the term that can be understood by everybody.
      • 3. Merely saying that a term is one used by a particular group is no definition at all if we cannot understand it without recourse to the publications of the group.
      • 4. I can't comment about "TeamSpeak" since I took no part in that discussion. "Sealed Systems" is now referenced in the more general sealed systems. I haven't completely made up my mind about "echo drawing" even if I give it the benefit of the doubt. Surrealism tends to belong to another world. Eclecticology [4 Sept. 2004]
  • All deleted. Eclecticology 16:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Starfrosh, starfrosck

• I honestly doubt that the information on the site is true. Sounds more like cold war russian propaganda for a certain NetRadio thingie... — N-true 11:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Dressed up to look like a normal article. References doubtful though even they refer to it as slang. One is a plagiarised form of Wiktionary; another asks people to vote on accepting it in the dictionary! Links to French and Spanish versions were to blank pages. Has any German speaker discussed this with de:wiktionary? Eclecticology 19:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am a German speaker and the German version says about the same in German as the English version. I have googled for the word "Starfrosch" in English and German (and also in Spanish for "rana estrella") which resulted only in pages having to do with this ominous cold war russian NetRadio. Never heard the word used as slang before in both English and German eithern. I doubt it's more than propaganda or so for that radio. It's as if I would add my comic chicken "Wummel-Knuffel" to the Wiktionary. ;) — N-true 20:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am a German speaker too. I have also googled for the word "Starfrosch" which resulted only in pages having to do with this Netaudio Group, but I have heard the word used as slang before in Swissgerman (Bernese Oberland). It could be russian cold war propaganda or so for that Netaudio Group too, so i removed the commercial stuff and links. — 11:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • We've now got starfrosh to deal with as well, which is copied and pasted from starfrosck. — DavidL 12:41 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • is this serious? seems to be a copy from starfrosck which could be a swissgerman word. starfrosh does only appear one time on google here http://www.google.ch/search?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&q=starfrosh&btnG=Suche&meta= . i don't belive that starfrosh exists. 18:04 29 Sep 2004
  • Starfrosch exist!!! this site is true b** by horus
  • ALERT: This discussion was removed from this page by User:80.218.112.200 on Sept. 30, apparently as a way of avoiding its deletion. I will delete both words. If there is documentation for the Swiss dialect usage, we can probably restore that part when it is provided. Eclecticology 03:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

pr0n

Yet more on this vexed subject can be found on the Beer Parlour Archives and on talk:pr0n -dmh 17:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Pr0n - represented as a misspelling of porn. We really don't need to represent every conceivable typo for a word. Eclecticology 00:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe this particular spelling is used to refer ironically to the ANN*0Y1NGLY MI SSPELLED SPAM everyone gets. If this can be supported (I can't be bothered at the moment) it can stand since it doesn't let in other random misspellings. If nothing turns up in a week, go ahead and gun it. I for one won't miss it. -dmh 02:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Deliberate misspellings aimed at getting round anti-spam software are not Wiktionary material, in my view. To go further than Eclecticology, I would say we must not list every conceivable typo of a word, otherwise Wiktionary will become filled with junk and lose credibility. — Paul G 08:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • That wasn't what I meant. I meant that non-spammers (may) used this spelling, and this spelling particularly, to mimic the nearly endless mutations that actual spammers employ. If it is true that this particular spelling is used for this particular purpose, then it deserves an entry. For example, a quick google for "pr0n" (why does no one ever seem to do this in these cases — I'm not saying it's never done, just not in cases like this it seems — but on the other hand I'm a little reluctant on this one myself ...) shows just such an entry in the Hacker's dictionary, which is probably where I got the notion in the first place. It's also used in domain names, presumably because people expect it to be recognized. Finally, without trying all the possibilities (I'll leave that to the pornographers :-), pr0n gets about five times as many hits as p0rn. I'd say keep it -dmh 05:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) (-dmh)
  • This term seems to have a significant enough life of its own to potentially merit inclusion, google gives 155,000 hits ... but I would feel a lot better about it if we could find some sort of mainstream citation for the term. I don't think this is a simple case of a mis-spelling. It is also clearly realted to entries such as 1337 — DavidL 15:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Google for "pr0n jargon" and take your pick of Hacker's dictionary mirrors. -dmh 20:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) (-dmh)
    • Deleted. I see none of the above as overwhelming support for these monstrosities. Eclecticology 08:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Um, so far two of us (three if the original author wasn't DavidL) have argued, quite reasonably I think, for keeping this entry. We have specifically argued narrowly. Other permutations do not appear in the hacker's dictionary nor do they appear nearly as commonly in google. Conversely it's really not hard to find this spelling, and only this spelling mentioned with the meaning given. Here's another one, not that I expect you to consider it legitimate: [1]. It's also mentioned on Wikipedia, under w:leet. If you don't find that convincing, fine, but I don't see how your displeasure is grounds for removing an entry. I also don't see why entries you don't like should require "overwhelming" support. Please reinstate. -dmh 18:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Blade Hirato recently removed this discussion, but I'm not sure why. The last addition to it is now about two days old, and no reply has appeared. At this point the discussion is still open. -dmh 19:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Although I still don't think that this item merits an entry, I do agree that this discussion was removed prematurely. My preference would continue to be to restrict this matter to leet and perhaps leetspeak, while dumping all entries other that entries that are represented as being in that idiom. Many of them are not even spelling variants, but might be better characterized as typographical distortions. It's evident from the Wikipedia article that the list is open ended, and subject to individual variations. Eclecticology 01:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • In a separate but related discussion, Eclecticology also writes: "The issue of pr0n is really the legitimacy of the status of any kind of leet entry. They are not words; they are wilful typographical distortions of words. From what I can see, any English word can be transformed into a leet counterpart. Like pig latin they are the product of infantile word games intended to mask their meaning from the uninitiated. Fortunately nobody is trying to promote pig latin. Like pig latin formulas can be applied to English words to produce new leet words."

This is exactly the basis of misunderstanding here. pr0n is manifestly not like other LEET-isms. It may not even derive from LEET. It could just as well be a piss-take on the broken spellings deliberately used by spammers. But whatever the origin, pr0n is one of the few such that has escaped the laboratory and is now running wild in the lexicon. Search for it on slashdot, for example, and you'll find abundant usages in ordinary English text where it is the only LEET-smelling word on the page. Further, it is the only such mutation that gets any significant use in this way (p0rn also appears on slashdot in the same way, but two orders of magnitude less often).

This is doubtless why it is the only such spelling of porn that I've seen mentioned in the Hacker's dictionary and other glossaries (for that matter, mention in THD should be sufficent basis for inclusion in Wiktionary, full stop).

While we're at it, the situation with Pig-Latin is exactly analogous. Do a google for ethay or isthay. Now do one for ixnay. Why would Pig-Latin for "nix" be an order of magnitude more common than Pig-Latin for "the" and "this"? Because "ixnay", despite its origin, is understood in general speech. Granted, hearing it tickles the "this is Pig-Latin" sensor for those in the know, but that's just part of its flavor. There are almost certainly speakers who understand ixnay without realizing it's Pig-Latin (especially since Offspring put out Ixnay on the Hombre). The same goes for "amscray". It's in Indiana Jones, with no other Pig-Latin in sight as I recall, and has even prompted a German Indy fan to ask what this English word "amscray" means. Adding entries for ixnay, amscray and pr0n in no way implies that eanutpay utterbay or TH3RM0M3T3R merit inclusion as well. -dmh 06:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we were to go down this route (and I think we would be opening a big can of worms if we did) and give these words legitimacy in Wiktionary, I think they would have to come under the title "pig Latin" and "Leet" respectively, as these can be considered dialects of English rather than as standard English. We already treat some creoles and pidgins as separate languages (such as Tok Pisin). How might we handle words such from Jamaican patois, such as "nyam" and "fi", which are used alongside standard English in conversation? — Paul G 10:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Dmh. I believe pr0n deserves an entry &mdash I also think it shouldn't be treated as a seperate language. It's jargon term, specific to one area, but is still perfectly English. As for amscray and ixnay, these aren't even jargon — just regular words (well, Americanisms) that happen to have origins in a language game. They deserve entries just as much as okay does, which arose quite similarly. Somewhat more radically, I also think that common l33t spellings should be listed as alternates in entries, of course marked as nonstandard. L33t deliberately for the purpose of obfuscation shouldn't be included, but j00 definitely should.

On creoles and pidgins: Tok Pisin, from what I've seen, is quite dissimilar to English. Although some words are vaguely recognisable, overall an English speaker would have quite a difficult time understanding a Tok Pisin speaker. Thus, it merits being treated as a seperate language — as opposed to l33t which, apart from a few slang terms, corresponds regularly to English. --Vladisdead 12:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs in the beer parlour. Just one point I'd like to add to what Vladisdead says: there are many conjectures about the origin of "okay" (amongst which are "Old Kinderhook" and "orl korrect"), but the true one is unknown - see its etymology in print dictionaries. I would not think it is pig Latin as that would make the original word, "ko". As far as I aware, this does not mean "all right". — Paul G 09:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)