Talk:Sexual slang/Archive 2

message: Sections 3 through 9 of this page constitute one giant list of slang.  The WP:NOT policy states that wikipedia is not a "slang and idiom guide", nor a list of dictionary definitions.  So... I realize this page has survived a VFD, but seems to me the majority of this article's, well, not supposed to be here.
*I actually kind of have to agree. From my understanding of Wikipedia policies, this shouldn't be here. It seems more appropriate for one of the other Wikimedia projects, like how many of the joke lists have been moved to Wikibooks. If there were more context involve, explanations of the slang terms, or if more of the slang terms had earned their own Wiki entries (but then, such entries would be better for Wiktionary anyway!), I could see leaving this as it is. But without changes I feel like this could do better in another project. Joshua Nicholson 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am your opposition on this one.  This is a very informative article, and it's staying.  And I will recommend a push to undelete Body parts slang as well.  This is deletionism gone off the cliff. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is deletionism gone off the cliff." Definietly an overstatement. NO other serious encylopedia (book/online) such as Encarta/Britannica/World Book and written versions have the kind of cruft that Body Parts Slang was. Nothing of value was lost by it being deleted. A policy violation, however, was removed :-).Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 01:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT]] Section 1.2.3, anyone? 

message: Am about to move here some sexual slang that is on the sexual intercourse article.  Those of you working here will have a better idea of how to integrate it into the Sexual Slang article.  I will insert the list into this Talk page.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual slang for intercourse

message: Since Body parts slang was recently ripped out of the Wikipedia without a reasonable consensus, and it used to be a part of this article, would anyone agree or object to re-including that material here?  Or should we just try to "undelete" that article? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything noteworthy can be added to this, as this article's AFD is closed...off course, Body Parts Slang had nothing worth being in an encyclopedia, whereas this article(the beginning) still has some worthy content, so there is not much to add from that. And 60%+ is consensus. Even so, in a slightly closer case (less than 60%), an admin would be the tiebreaker if they see Policy violation. I prefer 66% about, but there is not exact number, and policy takes precedence. If you still dont have the deleted article, then I could send you the contents. Thank you.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 01:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal vote was 8-7, and that's not a consensus.  I am seeking undeletion first, and failing that, will consider other options. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Body parts slang

message: Body parts slang, a spin-off from this article. has been submitted for undeletion.  It was deleted without a consensus being formed, after being wrongly resubmitted quickly after consensus failed the first time. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Body parts slang]] submitted for undeletion

message: Sections 3 through 9 of this page constitute one giant list of slang.  The WP:NOT policy states that wikipedia is not a "slang and idiom guide", nor a list of dictionary definitions.  So... I realize this page has survived a VFD, but seems to me the majority of this article's, well, not supposed to be here.
*I actually kind of have to agree. From my understanding of Wikipedia policies, this shouldn't be here. It seems more appropriate for one of the other Wikimedia projects, like how many of the joke lists have been moved to Wikibooks. If there were more context involve, explanations of the slang terms, or if more of the slang terms had earned their own Wiki entries (but then, such entries would be better for Wiktionary anyway!), I could see leaving this as it is. But without changes I feel like this could do better in another project. Joshua Nicholson 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am your opposition on this one.  This is a very informative article, and it's staying.  And I will recommend a push to undelete Body parts slang as well.  This is deletionism gone off the cliff. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is deletionism gone off the cliff." Definietly an overstatement. NO other serious encylopedia (book/online) such as Encarta/Britannica/World Book and written versions have the kind of cruft that Body Parts Slang was. Nothing of value was lost by it being deleted. A policy violation, however, was removed :-).Voice of AllT|@|Esperanza</font> 01:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The bar we've set for inclusion is not "Will someone show up and claim the article is useful?"  We need verifiability here, as this is an encyclopedia.  Afd or not, this article does not belong.  Friday (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT]] Section 1.2.3, anyone? 

message: This article has just survived 2 almost back-to-back AfD (articles for deletion) proceedings.  Yet, as of two days ago, the list was gone...
...and that's just not acceptable.  I'm sorry, but we're going to have to put a stop to this right now.
I just reviewed the proceedings and history of this article going back the past couple of months, and I'm appalled at what the silent majority is allowing just a couple of self-righteous zealots to do.  So I said to myself, "Why let these 2 self-appointed censors ruin everyone's fun?"
They have clearly overridden the consensus, and have taken matters into their own hands through a series of direct edits based on false interpretations and spurious grounds.
But don't take my word for it.  Working backwards, from present to past, let the record show...
=== "Clean-up" ===
A couple of days ago, this appeared in the article's history list:
"18:12, 23 November 2005 The Literate Engineer (Removed list, per last AFD result. Article is now cleaned up.)"
The same guy who nominated the article for deletion in the last AfD, axed the article.  Or more accurately, he axed what was left of the article (more about this later).
In other words, "clean up" was used synonymously with "delete".
He DELETED it!
Is that what the latest AfD decided?
Did The Literate Engineer blatantly disregard the consensus of that AfD?
Is The Literate Engineer truely literate?
Let's take a look...
=== But wait!  They moved (renamed) the article before the AfD was even over! ===
04:33, 15 November 2005 Voice of All(MTG) m (Talk:List of sexual slang moved to Talk:Sexual slang)
They were dismantling this thing before a consensus was reached.
What was that consensus, by the way?  Let's get back to that now...
=== The 10 November 2005 AfD discussion ===
This is an 89KB list of slang terms, making it not merely a violation of Section 1.2.3 of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", but one of sickeningly gargantuan proportions.  The first three paragraphs, the introduction, is the only segment that begins to approach meeting the definition of an encyclopedia article; the remainder, whether it's useful or not (which is irrelevant), is just a list of terms.  A list of terms does not belong on Wikipedia.  This is not the first nomination.  The Literate Engineer 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I would note that this article has some verifiable content in the begininng, although the list(which violates NOR) drifts off into unencyclopedic nonsense again. The Body Parts Slang article was nothing but a nonesensical list. This really should be categorized into links to Wiktionary, instead of having the list here.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>
=== Interpretation of AfD results vs. the actual results ===
Here is the interpretation that was posted in the AfD archive of the above discussion: The result of the debate was Keep and Cleanup. As a number of voters pointed out, this article needs to be trimmed down per WP:NOT I: 2.3 . The list should only include the more notable, varifiable, terms(such as those used in popular culture movies/books). The complete list, which is what this page mostly is now(although some terms may be bogus), can go on Wiktionary. Also, this was AFD'd to soon after the last AFD.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Comment- it does often prevent them from being created as articles- Excellent point. --JJay 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Claifying my position since pretty much everyone reacted to what they expected I might say instead of reading what I actually said: I am not offended.  It is enjoyable.  "Cleanup" means format and contents, not language (WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors).  The issue is not so much whether this information belongs - clearly there is consensus that Wikipedia needs an article on sexual slang.  Rather is issues as I see them, and the appropriate subjects of an AfD, are: (a) Does the article belong at List of sexual slang or at sexual slang? (b) Should the article contain a comprehensive list of slang terms in violation of clearly stated policy, or should that policy itself perhaps be changed? (c) If the article is kept, how are we to police the creeping neologisms, or is it fine for me to start calling my penis "William the Rod of Infinite Pleasure" and add that to the list?  There is a general consensus that information on Wikipedia be verifiable and notable - how many of these terms really fit that description, and shouldn't terms be moved to Wikipedia anyway?  I don't think the presence of this information is harmful in any way—quite the contrary, I'd like it to stay available insofar as it is verifiable and notable—I just don't think it belongs in the place where it currently lives. --Kgf0 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Thanks for your clarification. To respond to point c that you make -- this list should be held to the same standard of veribiability as everything else (or perhaps better, as sometimes we don't hold that up as high as we should). Also, I personally think that place and format are somewhat irrelevant, because if we really do follow verifiability, the list is not going to be terribly long. So, basically, do we want our slang in a list or a paragraph or two? (You will note that my vote is actually not that far off from yours -- this information should stick around, but I am currently a bit laissez-faire as to where.) --Jacquelyn Marie 05:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! YOU ARE POV RAMRODDING. 

message: Here is the interpretation that was posted in the AfD archive of the above discussion: The result of the debate was Keep and Cleanup. As a number of voters pointed out, this article needs to be trimmed down per WP:NOT I: 2.3 . The list should only include the more notable, varifiable, terms(such as those used in popular culture movies/books). The complete list, which is what this page mostly is now(although some terms may be bogus), can go on Wiktionary. Also, this was AFD'd to soon after the last AFD.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of AfD results vs. the actual results 

message: The result of the debate was KEEP  04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment- it does often prevent them from being created as articles- Excellent point. --JJay 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Claifying my position since pretty much everyone reacted to what they expected I might say instead of reading what I actually said: I am not offended.  It is enjoyable.  "Cleanup" means format and contents, not language (WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors).  The issue is not so much whether this information belongs - clearly there is consensus that Wikipedia needs an article on sexual slang.  Rather is issues as I see them, and the appropriate subjects of an AfD, are: (a) Does the article belong at List of sexual slang or at sexual slang? (b) Should the article contain a comprehensive list of slang terms in violation of clearly stated policy, or should that policy itself perhaps be changed? (c) If the article is kept, how are we to police the creeping neologisms, or is it fine for me to start calling my penis "William the Rod of Infinite Pleasure" and add that to the list?  There is a general consensus that information on Wikipedia be verifiable and notable - how many of these terms really fit that description, and shouldn't terms be moved to Wikipedia anyway?  I don't think the presence of this information is harmful in any way—quite the contrary, I'd like it to stay available insofar as it is verifiable and notable—I just don't think it belongs in the place where it currently lives. --Kgf0 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Thanks for your clarification. To respond to point c that you make -- this list should be held to the same standard of veribiability as everything else (or perhaps better, as sometimes we don't hold that up as high as we should). Also, I personally think that place and format are somewhat irrelevant, because if we really do follow verifiability, the list is not going to be terribly long. So, basically, do we want our slang in a list or a paragraph or two? (You will note that my vote is actually not that far off from yours -- this information should stick around, but I am currently a bit laissez-faire as to where.) --Jacquelyn Marie 05:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 18 October AfD discussion 

message: Since the opposition to the List of Sexual Slang treats clean up and deletion as one and the same thing, clearly in contradiction to the consensus of the AfD discussions, further clean up notices will not be acknowledged, anonymous or otherwise.  Expect dozens of this article's supporters to be ready to revert such bogus mandate notices.  Thinly veiled deletion attempts will no longer be tolerated!  You were voted down TWICE!!!
I'm reverting the article back before User:The Literate Engineer's and User:Voice of All(MTG)'s hack job on it, and I urge all other supporters of this list article to protect this version from these vandals.  Copy the source to your hard disk just in case, and be ready to revert the article against their machinations at all times!
----
Thanks for bearing with me.  Please post your replies below.  Thank you. Bend over 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proclamation 

message: Our two vandals, the Literate Engineer and The Voice of All claim to be members of the counter-vandalism team.  If that's true, they sure aren't doing a good job!--HistoricalPisces 18:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know what's crazy? 

message: As much as this sounds like an oxymoron, I'll suggest a cleanup of sexual slang.  Some vulgar terms have a long history.  "Fuck," for example, has a close cognate in the modern German verb "ficken."  To say "Fuck you," in German is, "Fick dich."  This is strong evidence that the verb has been in use for at least 1300 years, probably much longer.  A thoughtful analysis of one or two such terms would be very encyclopedic.
A few of the most stable sexual slang terms could serve a function similar to film quotes.  This would be interesting and encyclopedic if they illustrated different national linguistic patterns.  For instance the British epithet "bloody" is unused in North America, and when an American audience hears it in film or television few recognize the allusion to menstruation.
Historic sexual slang might merit attention, such as the use of double entendre to subvert film censorship.  Good examples can be found in Mae West quotes such as, "I wouldn't let him touch me with a ten foot pole."  I suppose what I'm saying is that a longer article is fine as long as it sets the subject in cultural context. Durova 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: bloody and fuck have their own articles. Trollderella 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: a visitor from rfc, for my 2 cents. a brief general description of history, regional variety, cultural context, etc. is appropriate for an encyclopedia. a list would be too long, not very informative, almost impossible to contain & double-check (with the constant changes & regional variations). Appleby 21:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to request for comment

message: Okay, so after the "List of Sexual Slang" page gets not only vandalized but locked up (WHO locked it and why?), I tried to get around this by making a new copy of the article at "List of Sexual Slang terms", and "Uncle G" comes along and deletes it. And now that article is locked up too!  All of this for an article that was overwhelmingly voted "Keep" in its AfD. Will someone please tell me what the heck is going on here?? wikipediatrix 17:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Urban Dictionary. They have no standards at all, and you can put anything you feel like in there, whether it exists or not. -Splashtalk 23:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lol...though it is true though :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free Encyclopedia"? Hardly!