Talk:nigger lottery
Latest comment: 1 year ago by TheDaveRoss in topic RFV discussion: June–July 2022
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Sorry about this, but here we are. The definition given is very specific and doesn't seem to be well supported. This, that and the other (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Am now fully on board with "anything outrageously offensive has to come with citations". Vote me up, babeh. Equinox ◑ 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The original definition read very weird, "untimely demise"? It also lacked the offensive label. At any rate, I've cited it and changed the definition in accordance with the citations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Given the number of labels, I've amended the layout slightly. I've found it works a little better when there are lots of labels, or when you want to avoid a lot of label repetition. Theknightwho (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: This makes it unparsable for programs and looks inconsistent to readers. Template:label also states that labels have to be on the definition line. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The standard layout is much more difficult for humans to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- How about a special usage note template to contextualize these kind of extremely offensive (and uncommon) entries, if we must have them, instead of slapping 7 (!) different labels on the entry? The note could also briefly explain why these kind of terms are included here. Casual readers don't read or know about WT:CFI. – Jberkel 07:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Category:English ethnic slurs is a subcategory of Category:English offensive terms, and should arguably be a subcategory of Category:English derogatory terms as well. Methinks some of these labels may be a tad redundant. Binarystep (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- How about a special usage note template to contextualize these kind of extremely offensive (and uncommon) entries, if we must have them, instead of slapping 7 (!) different labels on the entry? The note could also briefly explain why these kind of terms are included here. Casual readers don't read or know about WT:CFI. – Jberkel 07:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The standard layout is much more difficult for humans to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: This makes it unparsable for programs and looks inconsistent to readers. Template:label also states that labels have to be on the definition line. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Given the number of labels, I've amended the layout slightly. I've found it works a little better when there are lots of labels, or when you want to avoid a lot of label repetition. Theknightwho (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- sigh :-//// how many quotes from a Usenet area called literal "terrorism" do we have now? There are over 500 entries with the hard-r n-word somewhere on the page now, up from ~380 in 2020. And they get almost immediately cited, even if they weren't created in good faith; hence why I don't think option A in the current vote does anything. AG202 (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's actually an incentive for IPs to drop even more of their turd here. And they probably enjoy watching the ensuing discussions as well. – Jberkel 12:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- That could easily be fixed by banning IPs from making pages for offensive terms, cited or otherwise. As I've pointed out in previous discussions, IPs aren't allowed to edit these types of pages, so it's not like we'd be holding them to an unfair standard. Binarystep (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Binarystep Yes they are? They are definitely allowed to edit these types of pages, unless they've been previously locked already. You can literally look at the history of this page in question, and I'm able to edit it logged out in incognito if I want to. And while I would approve of IPs being banned from making offensive terms, I've already said that the implementation would be tough to do as @Benwing2 mentioned. AG202 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, I over-generalized. All of the widely-used slurs (including internet-exclusive ones) are locked, though, and I'd support extending that to everything else in Category:English ethnic slurs (with the exception of terms like apple that are primarily used in an innocuous context). As for my suggestion being difficult to implement, I'm not really sure why. The only issue is that it can't be done automatically, but that didn't stop us from having rules against vandalism. Binarystep (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Part of me just doesn't see the benefit, like sure they may be deleted, but if editors are willing to cite them on demand, there's nothing stopping someone from immediately sending them to RFV. These entries here were created by IPs, but almost every single one has been cited. While I think that banning IPs from creating offensive entries is nice, I don't think that it'll actually do anything in the end. AG202 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Once again we have an obscure, highly derogatory/offensive term cited only in Usenet. This is why I think we should require an additional source in such cases. Benwing2 (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Part of me just doesn't see the benefit, like sure they may be deleted, but if editors are willing to cite them on demand, there's nothing stopping someone from immediately sending them to RFV. These entries here were created by IPs, but almost every single one has been cited. While I think that banning IPs from creating offensive entries is nice, I don't think that it'll actually do anything in the end. AG202 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, I over-generalized. All of the widely-used slurs (including internet-exclusive ones) are locked, though, and I'd support extending that to everything else in Category:English ethnic slurs (with the exception of terms like apple that are primarily used in an innocuous context). As for my suggestion being difficult to implement, I'm not really sure why. The only issue is that it can't be done automatically, but that didn't stop us from having rules against vandalism. Binarystep (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Binarystep Yes they are? They are definitely allowed to edit these types of pages, unless they've been previously locked already. You can literally look at the history of this page in question, and I'm able to edit it logged out in incognito if I want to. And while I would approve of IPs being banned from making offensive terms, I've already said that the implementation would be tough to do as @Benwing2 mentioned. AG202 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- That could easily be fixed by banning IPs from making pages for offensive terms, cited or otherwise. As I've pointed out in previous discussions, IPs aren't allowed to edit these types of pages, so it's not like we'd be holding them to an unfair standard. Binarystep (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's actually an incentive for IPs to drop even more of their turd here. And they probably enjoy watching the ensuing discussions as well. – Jberkel 12:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
RFV-passed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that these citations are sufficient. They are all from one source, and one is in scare quotes. - TheDaveRoss 12:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are from three different Usenet groups, from three different authors and 4 years apart. Quotes are irrelevant as long as the expression still conveys meaning. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is like saying "CFI" is a general English term because multiple people have used it on Wiktionary. - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you think all terms cited only on Usenet should fail RFV? You can start a vote if you think that but it goes completely against precedent; we have tons of articles where different Usenet citations each count as one. Usenet citations are treated as independent until proven otherwise (because you can't really prove it the other way around). Pinging also @WordyAndNerdy. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would also like to remind you that there was good consensus to keep Talk:everypony where you made similar arguments. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is like saying "CFI" is a general English term because multiple people have used it on Wiktionary. - TheDaveRoss 18:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are from three different Usenet groups, from three different authors and 4 years apart. Quotes are irrelevant as long as the expression still conveys meaning. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The requirement for three independent uses in CFI means that 1) multiple quotations from the same author cannot serve as the three base citations and 2) one of the citations cannot be a direct quote or translation of another citation. In other words, one couldn't use two quotes from tech reviewer Jane Smith to cite phablet, even if they were taken from different articles, different issues, or different magazines. It also means that, if Cellular Chronicle quotes a Jane Smith review from Mobile Monthly and Le Revue Cellulaire translates it, only the original Mobile Monthly review can "count" for attestation purposes.
- It's acceptable to attest terms solely with Usenet cites for the same reason it's acceptable to attest terms solely from books. The "independent" provision of CFI does not mean that the three required citations cannot be from the same medium. It's even fine to use citations from a single Usenet newsgroup as long as they span a year and appear to be from three different authors. This is no different than using citations from three different books published by HarperCollins from the perspective of CFI. Of course there's always the potential for sockpuppeting in any online space. But the fact that the provided citations span four years and come from three unrelated newsgroups strongly suggests they are the work of three different posters. CFI doesn't require us to forensically assess whether two quotes may have been written by the same person.
- This term has thus been satisfactorily attested per CFI. There's no policy or precedent for selectively imposing higher CFI standards on certain words. If this is something you believe should be implemented then it would need to be put before the community as a formal vote. RfV and RfD are not appropriate venues for these discussions. (That said I wanted to attest majestic flap flap but here we are weighing edgelord nonsense again.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that I disagree that what you have provided should be sufficient. I understand what the policy is, I disagree with it.
- I do think most terms which can only be cited from UseNet should fail, especially if there are fewer than a dozen cites available there, that means the term is far too niche to be worth including. I also think we shouldn't try to become a 4chan glossary, but I have no doubt that is the next step down this counterproductive path. Are there terms which began their life on UseNet or 4chan? Absolutely. But in order for them to become worth including here they should have made their way out of their original venues and be evident in lots of places. I don't think a term which has been used three times ever merits inclusion, I am not sure why anyone would think it did. The CFI asks for three cites assuming they would be three among thousands, not the entirety of its use in history. It baffles me that anyone would think that these extremely niche terms are useful to include. - TheDaveRoss 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)