Talk:Australian English vocabulary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Australian English vocabulary is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Australian vocabulary
How about we move this to Australian vocabulary, per Portuguese vocabulary, Bulgarian vocabulary, Spanish vocabulary, Romanian vocabulary, and others? Alexander 007 03:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Those all refer to the words used by a specifc language, not to particular words and usages in one variety of a language. There is Australian English and there are Australian Aboriginal languages but there is nothing called the "Australian language" per se. Australian English vocabulary would be correct, but I think the present title is fine. Why use seven syllables when one will do the job? Grant65 | Talk 11:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- You make a good point. In fact, I think your point is so good that we should move the article to Australian English vocabulary, because Australian words could include Australian words not used in Australian English. Alexander 007 12:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Funny, when I split the article out from Australian English that's what I called it but Grant's right it should be Australian English vocabulary. So, yeah, you have my vote. Jimp 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ... No, Grant doesn't say this exactly "Why use seven syllables when one will do the job?" because it's a better name. Let's move it. Jimp 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion
As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virutally all of them violate the following policy:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
- Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
- Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
- A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
This has created a situation where editors trying to enforce policy frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the AfD discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.
Therefore, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- What much of this article does violate is the verification rule: few of the words here are backed-up by any external references. Editors apparently just add in words they use themselves, assuming that they they must therefore be Australian. I used to take out the non-Aust words (like clobber for clothes) but now I have given up because they usually get added in again shortly afterwards. Asa01 05:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transwiki to Wiktionary
"What's going on?" you might wonder. Refer to Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion above. List Expert reminds us that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Thus this article should not be here. He links us to the discussion he'd started up regarding Slang glossaries. He was aiming at drumming up support for his proposal to change the policy to allow articles such as this. The result, as best as I can sum it up, was no concensus. Therefore no change to the policy and therefore this article really should not be here. Reading through the discussions it appeared to me that the best move would be to transwiki these glossaries of Aussie slang to Wiktionary appendices. First, however, they needed splitting into encyclopædic vs. dictionary content. Everything that was encyclopædic amongst them I've moved (for the time being) to Australian words (where once it had lived). These pages then will be moved to Wiktionary (barring any hiccups) history and all. Once this is done the content now at Australian words can be put back here. Links from this article to the Wiktionary appendices in question can then be added as I've done at Australian words#Rhyming slang (a half-done transwikification that I finished off last night). I'm certain that this is the best thing to do ... it may not be the best way to do it ... if not, then hang me. Jimp 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- If these articles are being transwikied, what about Australian Diminutives? Most of the abbreviations in that article seem to already be listed in other articles about Aust English anyway. Asa01 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- All but this one have been moved and, yes, I think you're right, Australian Diminutives should be moved too. At first glance it looks like an article but closer inspection reveals that it's just a poorly formatted list. You note, Asa01, that most of this stuff exists elsewhere, though. This is true, so what we could do instead of moving it would just be to redirect it here. However, this article is huge. What we could do is remove the diminutives from the general list on this page. This would perhaps be best. Jimp 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- See discusion of Australian Diminutives article at Talk:Australian Diminutives Asa01 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- All but this one have been moved and, yes, I think you're right, Australian Diminutives should be moved too. At first glance it looks like an article but closer inspection reveals that it's just a poorly formatted list. You note, Asa01, that most of this stuff exists elsewhere, though. This is true, so what we could do instead of moving it would just be to redirect it here. However, this article is huge. What we could do is remove the diminutives from the general list on this page. This would perhaps be best. Jimp 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- If these articles are being transwikied, what about Australian Diminutives? Most of the abbreviations in that article seem to already be listed in other articles about Aust English anyway. Asa01 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I liked it better before, actually. There seems to be heaps of stuff missing.
- You can still find all that stuff. Just click on the links in the boxes & you'll be in Wiktionary where the pages and pages of Aussie slang now happily live. Jimp 07:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It's done
It's done. This long list of slang is finally in its dictionary. The encyclopædic stuff has been moved back here from Australian words. Of course, copy-&-paste moves are frowned upon at Wikipedia but this is mostly because we want to preserve history. This is not so much of an issue with the current text because most of the significant editing was done here anyway. Jimp 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair Dinkum
Fair dinkum redirects here but is not defined anywhere on the page or in the various appendices. 205.118.21.137 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
