Talk:Mung (computer term)

message: Munge and mung are different words - see for example this page - mung means destruction, munge means conflation/merging. Munge possibly has a derivation from Lowland Scots. Scottkeir 11:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jargon File entry has very similar definitions for both, suggesting confusion and/or convergence: http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/mung.html . Maybe it's worth adding a section describing the etymology and discrepancy? I've updated Munge to redirect to this page, instead of [Munged_password] which I think should be deleted. Ambiguator (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Munge and Mung are different words

message: I have edited the main article to reflect the definition found on the urban dictionary website.  While it is certainly disgusting, this reflects the way that many people I know talk about the word "mung."
PStrait 05:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources you provided do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. See in particular the section on self-published sources and Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neologisms. --Muchness 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The key part of the guideline you quoted is "so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" – there is no evidence in the provided reference ()  that David Beaver has published material relevant to this usage of "mung" in credible third-party publications. Furthermore, the reference's only cite for usage is urbandictionary, which is not a credible publication for the purposes of Wikipedia, and is insufficient to demonstrate notable current usage. I invite you to seek mediation or provide substantive references to demonstrate notable usage if you wish to include this material. --Muchness 05:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia is only slightly more credible than urban dictonary, pretty much anyone can put on any definition they want, user edited remember, get off your high horse...AND NO, I'M NOT SIGNING MY COMMENT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.180.79 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: What Beaver has described is a protologism at best – that is, a neologism that is not yet in common usage. The issue here is not whether Beaver is credible, the issue is whether the referenced blog post establishes that the term is in current usage. The referenced blog entry does not address the issue of whether the usage is common, it provides an anecdotal exchange with a firend and a link to a site that you agree is insufficient. To include this material you need to establish that the term is in common usage, which the provided references do not do. --Muchness 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A song lyric by a band that fails WP:MUSIC does not substantiate that this term is in common usage. --Muchness 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mung involves desecrating a corpse 

message: According to the urban dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com), "munging" includes the following: 1. a recently deceased corpse is disinterred, 2. one person places their mouth over the vagina or anus of the deceased, and 3. another person jumps on the corpse so that a combination of bodily liquids and embalming fluid flies into the mouth of the first person. That combination is referred to as "mung." (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mung) This definition is supported also by the University of Pennsylvania Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003233.html), which states: "to mung is to consume the bodily fluids of a corpse, preferably that of an old woman, and typically by direct mouth-on-orifice contact while a buddy jumps on the corpse's stomach. " 
Additional support for this usage can be found in the lyrics to Goratory's song "Heading Mung Festivo," which include:
"A classic mung scenario
With me the catcher and Griffin the jumper
Positioned for mung driven madness
My mouth in front of her rotted pu***
Waiting for dead excretions to vomit from the depths of her cu**"
(http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/goratory/riceonsuede.html#4)
==== Muchness, you are not answering my arguments ====
What you are doing constitutes vandalism and violates the 3RR.  At least have the respect to answer my arguments.
PStrait 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mung as a product of corpse desecration 

message: What you are doing constitutes vandalism and violates the 3RR.  At least have the respect to answer my arguments.
PStrait 14:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muchness, you are not answering my arguments 

message: Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Anyone can write anything there. I could easily say Mung was the king of Sweden in 1412 and then I could link it here, but that would not make it true. So please stop adding it. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To speak to these concerns, there is still no reliable source (as per WP:RS) that has been cited saying that the "corpse" definition is valid. Per WP:RS, blogs are not a reliable source, and the Penn Language Log is exactly that; a blog. I have reverted the addition of that definition until a reliable source can be found. --64.132.163.178 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cowman109, thanks for your work on this article, but I still object to the section's inclusion. I agree with your initial assessment that "there is no reason to keep this unless there is some sort of reliable dictionary definition or some sort of reliable source that goes on to explain the roots of the word." However, I dispute that the provided source meets those requirements; as you say, it only cites urbandictionary as evidence of usage; no other sources for usage are provided. I don't feel that the section belongs in this article unless sources that meet WP:RS can substantiate pre-existing common usage. Urbandictionary doesn't meet this requirement, nor does a blog post citing urbandictionary as its only reference. --Muchness 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As per my above comment, not only is a weblog without clear editorial oversight not a reliable source according to the official Wikipedia policy on the subject, one which accepts an assertion just because there's an urbandictionary entry on it is all the more suspect. Like I said above, until a reliable source can be found, I have reverted the addition of this definition. --64.132.163.178 14:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban dictionary is not a reliable source 

message: This article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Please see WP:NOT.
Seffer 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, you could put it up for deletion. --Aquillion 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I support keeping it, as data munging is a common practice in IT nowadays. The article can encompass much more than just the definition. In other words, the article should be about the concept the jargon term refers to, and not the jargon term itself. I believe the term was invented because no suitable word already existed to describe this practice. Proxyma (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word/jargon definitions don't belong in Wikipedia 

message: Early versions of AmigaOS contained a program called "Mungwall", but I can't remember what it did. 91.49.116.110 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mungwall 

message: I am considering removing this paragraph (marked with Dubious-Discuss on the article page). Based on other definitions and current usage, I don't believe that munging implies destruction. Also, this article should focus on the IT practice of data munging (widespread), not other uses of the word as in computer games. Those aren't likely notable enough in themselves. Proxyma (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zork/Implies Destruction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mung (computer term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/M/mung.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pdp8.net/os/os8/os8_cmd.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mung (computer term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050424050957/http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?mung to http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?mung
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030512072826/http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?munge to http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?munge
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified