Talk:Sexual slang/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WP:NOT Section 1.2.3, anyone?

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)
    • I have recently joined Wiktionary as well as several other sister projects. I am working toward an understanding of the processes in place there, with an eye toward moving stuff that violates WP:NOT Dictionary.3 somewhere appropriate. I think if the function were being properly served elsewhere, in accord with the policies of that project, there would be less desire to see the same things here, and maybe some of the anti-slang-list AfD's would pass. Once I understand what all would be involved, I am considering trying to implement this as some manner of Project here, perhaps something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Slang, to make a concerted effort at cleanup. Feel free to watch my User page if that's something you might like to participate in. --Kgf0 22:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I closed the sister article's(Body Parts Slang) AfD as Delete for much of the same reasons.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiSaurus is the place for this. It already has most of the headwords, as you can see from the table at the top of this talk page. (WikiSaurus already had all of the headwords from body parts slang. It also already had ears, nose, eyes, face, and mouth — which were oddly omitted from the body parts slang article.) Uncle G 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've started (another) AFD on this page. The Literate Engineer 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"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)

removed from baseball area

  • The OT - Screwing a girl and then posting the pics on the internet.
  • The whydoyouwanttoknow - Where you fuck an American.
  • smellslikeshitgoddam - when you're late
  • The Tone - Nuts in teh ass, dick in teh pussy. Freak dat bitch Tone!

These terms may need to be placed somewhere else in the article.

Sexual slang for intercourse

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)

  • I've removed it. WikiSaurus has this covered at WikiSaurus:sexual intercourse. The thesaurus (i.e. Wiktionary) is the place for lists of synonyms, slang and otherwise. The list of slang terms related to cannabis and its use was removed from that article and placed in Wiktionary. The lists of synonyms for penis was rejected from that article, and can now be found in WikiSaurus. The list of synonyms for testicles has been removed from that article and is in WikiSaurus. sexual intercourse should adopt the same solution. This is what the "lexical companion to Wikipedia" is for. Uncle G 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Body parts slang

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 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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)
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 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Body parts slang submitted for undeletion

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 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


This article was nominated for deletion on November 10, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep/Cleanup. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

WP:NOT Section 1.2.3, anyone?

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)
    • I have recently joined Wiktionary as well as several other sister projects. I am working toward an understanding of the processes in place there, with an eye toward moving stuff that violates WP:NOT Dictionary.3 somewhere appropriate. I think if the function were being properly served elsewhere, in accord with the policies of that project, there would be less desire to see the same things here, and maybe some of the anti-slang-list AfD's would pass. Once I understand what all would be involved, I am considering trying to implement this as some manner of Project here, perhaps something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Slang, to make a concerted effort at cleanup. Feel free to watch my User page if that's something you might like to participate in. --Kgf0 22:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I closed the sister article's(Body Parts Slang) AfD as Delete for much of the same reasons.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiSaurus is the place for this. It already has most of the headwords, as you can see from the table at the top of this talk page. (WikiSaurus already had all of the headwords from body parts slang. It also already had ears, nose, eyes, face, and mouth — which were oddly omitted from the body parts slang article.) Uncle G 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've started (another) AFD on this page. The Literate Engineer 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"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 01:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"I think this is a very informative article. I think it is very hard for users interested in this topic organize information in a good fashion. (Sorry if I didn't post this comment in the right place.)" (unsigned comment by 67.41.147.187 placed on closed AfD)

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)

I don't think this article violates WP:NOT. WP:NOT is prohibiting more instructional pages regarding idioms, this was simply a large compiled list of something. The list of BitTorrent clients on the BItTorrent page is synonymous. There was nothing wrong with thelist that used to be here. It certainly had value.

I took the list out and removed the cleanup notice. Left the wikisaurus template, obviously. Now, I'm wondering, are the "see also" entries still pertinent, since they had more to do with the list than the actual encyclopedia article. The Literate Engineer 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Following is a long letter, with subheadings. Please post your replies at the end of the message, because that's where I signed it. Otherwise it will get very confusing. Thanks. Bend over 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! YOU ARE POV RAMRODDING.

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)

  • Strong Keep. It is informative, descriptive by comparisons/groupings, and it is extensive (which indeed has its strong and weak points). Further, there is a competing section of WP:NOT, namely 1.5.2, which allows for "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles". Since many of the terms on the page indeed have their own articles, it is useful for encyclopedic purposes to group and compare them, and this indeed assists with the organization of articles. Also, just because it is long is not an excuse to delete an article, but rather should be an impetus to break it up into separate articles. There's no denying that neologisms and cruft have crept into this article, but that fact demands that more contributors participate in handling verification of such terms. Last, I have to protest this "nomination bombardment", where a consensus wasn't arrived at the first time, so the argument losers try again. This also happened with Body parts slang, and its deletion resulted in a very informative article being wiped off with a slight majority that could not have been reasonably construed as a consensus. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep why is no reason given for re-nomination? It was voted on like 2 weeks ago with a quite high ratio of keeps. Anyway like it or not there are lots of lists of jargon/slang/technical terms on Wikipedia, for example List of baseball jargon. As long as they're well organized and useful, I don't see the problem. It's just when the subject is sex or something controversial that people start to look for excuses to delete such lists. Until consensus is to delete all slang/jargon/terms lists changes, I can't see deleting just certain ones for subjective personal reasons, under the thin excuse of arguably breaking WP:NOT. --W.marsh 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Being useful is a necessary but insufficient criterion for an entry. For starters, it needs to be an actual article, which means prose.The Literate Engineer 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep encyclopedic, just because something is in "poor taste" does not mean it should be deleted. -Skrewler 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The issue is not poor taste, but that this is a thesaurus, mis-placed in the encyclopaedia in contravention of our clear Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Freakofnurture had exactly the right idea in the last AFD discussion. The article should be trimmed, with the large home-grown and mis-placed thesaurus entries replaced with links to WikiSaurus (which, unlike Wikipedia, is a thesaurus — and a multilingual one, at that), and renamed back to sexual slang, where it used to be. This does not require the article to be deleted, but it does require some resolve, and support (in terms of keeping the thesaurus entries from growing again once excised) from the various editors who have expressed their agreement with this. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per previous AfD result. Bryan 00:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. When it says "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", I think it means that we shouldn't devote an entire article to each and every one of these slang terms. And rightly so. I think having them all quarantined on one page will suffice. I also think that after weeding out a lot of the obviously obscure (and bogus) slang terms, the page should be capped and not strive to become a neverending all-inclusive list of every ridiculous dirty phrase ever conceived. - Wikipediatrix 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Previous AFD isn't even a month old and the vote was to keep. That's enough for me right there. 23skidoo 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am one of the few editors who ever tries to maintain this list, by removning the most obvious vandalism and nonsense. It is unmaintainable and unverifiable because there are no sources (except "South Park", apparently). Anyone voting to "keep" should be prepared to do participate in the trimming that everyone calls for. (That said, this is an irregelular AfD). -Willmcw 07:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up – Trim greatly per my previous vote and per Uncle G. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per last nomination, if you want to renominate something which yielded a clear "keep", you must have a very good reason for doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep — as I understand it, the "slang guide" was intended to address how slang is used, not the slang itself. But yes, I'm not sure what useful encyclopedic purpose this list provides, other than perhaps as a future reference. — RJH 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, redirect, and then delete — I was the originator of what is now stored as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18, where my rationalle was WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary (#3 A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide), WP:V, WP:NOR. I apologize for the length of my comment; however, I feel it is necessary to address the various issues involved in this renomination. My original nomination was timed specifically to coincide with discussion then ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2; in reference accusations of nomination bombardment, I feel that it is appropriate that similar nominations be made concurrently, both to focus the attention of those having opinions on the issue, and to forestall, in some measure, the inevitable claims that the existance of one policy violation supports the existance of another (i.e., if Body parts slang exists, then List of sexual slang should also exist, and vice versa) as were proffered this time by W.marsh. Given the number of people who would agree with the statement "'List of' considered harmful," real nomination bombardment would be stuffing an AFD day with every "List of" article on the site - and that would be harmful, IMHO. Further, the circular logic of using one policy violation to support another at best puts precedent over policy, an idea I think would seriously degrade Wikipedia over time. After all, there's precedent for vanity pages too, and we AFD them, even though at any given time there are plenty of others continuing to exist. That said, I have to agree in part with Stevie is the man! when he claims that Body Parts may not have had proper consensus; if he feels that strongly about it, I would direct him to Deletion Review. Similarly, I am disappointed that this nomination was made so soon, as this diminishes the odds that it will ever be removed - we can't simply renominate every three weeks until we "win," and apparant out-of-process nominations will garner more Keep votes, as exemplified by 23skidoo. Nevertheless, in the end, this article has numerous problems that speak in favor of, at worst, deletion and, at best, Merge as appropriate (the text of the intro and significant, verified terms to Sexual slang per Uncle G, the remaining verifiable terms to WikiSaurus), and I suppose that is constructively my vote here, even if it means my Disciplined Deletionist credentials are revoked. I wish I could spend more time policing the article; OTOH, I would also like to keep my job, and spending time on that particular page is not likely to help me there. FWIW, I think a move to Sexual slang should, at a minimum, keep the neologisms and protologisms to a comparative minimum. One thing I'm sure of: if we decide again to keep this article, we need many more people looking at it to ensure that it does not suck; to do otherwise will serve only to undermine the credibility of the project as a whole, and of Wikipedia policy in general. Keeping it under the present title creates the appearance of condoning, if not encouraging, the addition of, well, anything that makes a schoolboy snicker. Finally, I would also point out that, aside from the fact that this particular subject field has more than its fair share of attraction to vandals, my nomination and comments have never had anything to do with its contents per se, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, nor should it be. --Kgf0 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep. Its a great flytrap for vandals - keeps them away from serious articles. --Ezeu 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
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.

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)

Hmmm. He stated that the article needs to be cleaned up/trimmed down, meaning of course, that entries would be deleted. I don't recall reading this in the majority of the votes from the AfD discussion above. Let's tally the results:

Keep & clean up =3 votes Keep, with no mention of clean up =7 votes Delete = 4 votes (including the nomination)

That's 10 votes to keep, out of which 3 voted to clean up. 3 out of 10. So how was the result "Keep and cleanup?" Since when is 3 a majority? The 7 Keeps with no cleanup requirement have the clear majority. These 7 guys were clearly against deleting the article period. And this was the second AfD in less than a month. The results of the first AfD were even more compelling. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Well, User:Voice of All(MTG) failed to communicate the truth. He seems to want to speak for the rest of us whether we want him to or not.

And on this dubious interpretation, User:Voice of All(MTG) and user:The Literate Engineer gleefully cleaned up (i.e., deleted) the entire article.

"Literate Engineer" is apparently a synonym for "censor", in this case one whom is trying to engineer the article out of existence.

But they planned to clean this thing up (i.e., delete as much of it as they could) long before this...

The mysterious clean-up notice

The following entry, a clean-up notice, was posted to the list on November 1st:

23:44, 1 November 2005 68.17.227.41

(Notice, there was no remark to point out that a clean-up notice was posted. Pretty sneeky.)

I wonder who posted that? It couldn't have been User:Voice of All(MTG) or The Literate Engineer, could it? Naaaaaah.

But whoever it was, that was his or her only edit. Nothing before or after. Looks like a sock-puppet, folks.

The 18 October AfD discussion

The result of the debate was KEEP [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

List of sexual slang

WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary #3, WP:V, WP:NOR Kgf0 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this extremely valuable research tool!
  • Keep chad
  • Keep feedyoureye
  • Delete (nominator) - I nominated this now to go in tandem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang as it violates the same policies. However, I would be in favor of moving the few paragraphs that consititute an article about sexual slang to Sexual slang which currently redirects to the nominee List of. --Kgf0 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: for further detail on reasoning see this brief discussion. --Kgf0 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Purplefeltangel/sig 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ifnord 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Trim greatly and move to sexual slang over redirect (per Kgf0), but keep a select few examples. Add a interwiki link to wiktionary as needed, or... is there a wikithesaurus? that would be more appropriate in this case. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Molotov (talk)
    23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Got to vote Keep here. Don't see the issue with OR or V. Article is encyclopedic and people are contributing. --JJay 00:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I too see this as a clear keep. These are terms that have commonly been in use in popular culture (therefore not OR or V). It's also, whether the submitter wants to hear this or not, one of the kinds of things that people come to wikipedia for. We're not urban dictionary (thank god), but we're not Encyclopedia Brittanica either -- and that's part of our draw. I'd like to keep most of this around, but if it helps to build consensus, I would support trimming, and/or changing it from a list to more of an article-type article, and/or moving it to sexual slang. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Private Butcher 02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Cleanup (note: see my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2) Worthwhile look at vulgate (and vulgar) vernacular. Youngamerican 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep. There are issues with people introducing protologisms, but it does often prevent them from being created as articles, and gives a good redirect target if they do. — brighterorange (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment- it does often prevent them from being created as articles- Excellent point. --JJay 13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP!! This article provides good information on slang words. Don't clean it up, how are people going to know these terms if they are cleaned up?
  • Keep. But cleanup possibly. Not many lists of this magnitude are found elsewhere on the web. -Andrew 06:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep It!!! It is for mere enjoyment. No one is being hurt by this article. The title describes the article so people should know what to expect. If you are offended, then don't look at it.

I see the Wikipedia as a catalouge of the world's knowledge in a funsize wrapper. Like it or not this page represents a portion of that knowledge. If the Wikipedia should remain an interesting and useful tool in this regard it must include articles such as these.

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)
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)
  • KeepAlthough I dislike slang, I have to keep up with it in order to understand what my parents say.--HistoricalPisces 20:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The results of the 18 October AfD:

Keep & clean = 3 Keep, no clean = 11 Delete = 2

To recap:

  • First, they made a lame AfD attempt on the list which seriously failed.
  • Second, an anonymous sock-puppet placed a clean-up notice on the list.
  • Third, they tried another AfD against the list and it failed too.
  • Fourth, they moved the list to a non-list name, even before the AfD discussion was over.
  • Fifth, even though they lost the AfD vote, they deleted the list anyways!

The uncounted implicit vote

Don't forget the silent majority. Hundreds of Wikipedians contributed to the list, who by implication of their contributions cast their vote in support of the list.

They will be more aware of your actions from now on. The rest of us will see to that.

Proclamation

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)

Article about sexual slang, versus list of sexual slang

This is an encyclopedia. For this reason, I consider the article far better in it's current (short) version. This way, it's an article about sexual slang, rather than being an indiscriminate list of sexual slang. Friday (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Friday here. WP:ISNOT the formerly indiscriminate collection of information that this article was. Now we have an article about sexual slang, which is a perfectly encyclopedic content rather than a pseudo-dictionary collection of any word anyone ever heard once in a pub. Oh, and WP:V, too. -Splashtalk 17:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
This is about the AfD. The vote was to KEEP. See the letter above. Bend over 17:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't about the AfD. It's about the dozen or so people, myself included, who have correctly determined that while an article on sexual slang is appropriate, a list of it is not, and expressed that opinion either on this talk page or in the AFD discussions you so kindly copied on here. The Literate Engineer 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Nup. The AfD was merely to retain an article on sexual slang. Anyone can edit any article they like in any way they like at any time (apart from vandalism, of course). AfD established that Wikipedia should carry information on the topic: I think that the ifnormation it should carry is excellently conveyed by the shorter, professional, encyclopedic article than the long colleciton of beer-talk. And I didn't read the screed above, since I can read an AfD debate for myself. This page utterly fails the core concept of WP:V backed by the guidance in WP:RS and anyone who brings it into line with that is to be commended. Anyone who hauls it away from that, condemned. -Splashtalk 17:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
So far the consensus is for the short version. The only argument I see in favor of the longer one depends on the Afd, which, as pointed out above, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Before further reverting, I'd like to see some discussion on the talk page of why anyone thinks the list belongs. Friday (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, is anyone going to use the talk page, or are people just going to revert? Friday (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've articulated myself fully and clearly here already. I will say, though, that I agree with Daycd's point about examples, which is why I added a few (possibly not the best, and possibly reflecting an American systemic bias) to the article-version. However, any sort of list is no longer "giving examples" but is duplicating the wikisaurus and does not belong. Several other people have also clearly articulated reasons why the list does not belong (I believe I've articulated more as well). Regardless, I'm at 3 reverts so I'm done. Also, this talk page is getting long, and the first half could probably go into archives, although some of the sections above (such as the "WP NOT section 1.2.3, anyone?" section) are pertinent to this discussion. The Literate Engineer 18:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I specifically meant the people reverting to the version with the long list, who have not made an attempt to explain their reasoning. Pasting in an unreasonably large section from an Afd isn't much of an explanation. Friday (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the wikisaurus link box at the top. I would encourage that as many of the words/phrases from the list get transfered to wikisaurus as possible. i don't know too much about wikisaurus so I'm not sure which would be appropriate to move across. Does anyone know how much of the list could be moved to wikisaurus?
Also, I like the changes that liberator made to add examples to the text. I think more could be added, such as examples of Carlin's humor. I do agree with the premise that a huge list in this article means that the text loses it's impact. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There are far too many sexual slang terms to list them all. For example, I note that "strangling the wallaby" and "giving the tentacle" are missing, as is the entire set of sexual descriptive terms from Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights. --Carnildo 23:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any concensus to remove the list, why not split it out into a separate article? Trollderella 21:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe this was done, but it was changed into a redirect and is now protected. This should not be allowable. -Andrew 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why was it protected? Who did it? Trollderella 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
List of sexual slang formerly contained the material that was in the deleted Body parts slang. That deletion was upheld at DRV, but even then the material was reposted. I removed the edits containing that deleted material, which left the last revision as a redirect here. User:Voice of All(MTG) reverted to the redirect and protected after the deleted material was reinserted again. This was obviously the correct move at the time. I am sure the redirect will be unprotected once the protecting admin is sure the deleted material plans to stay that way. The supply of good-faith is probably close to exhaustion on that material. For clarity, it is not the same material that is being discussed in this article. However, the deleted body-parts slang obviously shouldn't magically appear here, either. -Splashtalk 00:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You know what's crazy?

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)

Responding to request for comment

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)

bloody and fuck have their own articles. Trollderella 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
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)

I argee that the history of some words merits discussion. However, in addition terms that can be explained should also be present --as seen in articles that explain sex acts, ever wondered what a cleveland steamer was? go to wikipedia. That said this isn't urban dictionary or a dictionary at all, so let's not just list lots of terms. maybe a link could be made to pages with full lists to make those crying that wikipedia isn't "libre" can be made happier. 19:06, 16 December 2005 (ECT)

  • The article already contains such links. Please read the article. Uncle G 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Free Encyclopedia"? Hardly!

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)

The old list was useful. Wanna check-out what a phrase means....Where do you go now?....elsewhere...GREAT!!! Super stuff "Uncle G". Lets keep people away from information so they can't make their own minds up. cheers indy_slug

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)
lol...though it is true though :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/x/Talk%7ESexual_slang_Archive_2_4fca.html"