Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galumphing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was Redirected to Jabberwocky (what harm can it do, and it might help some confused schoolkid). Black Kite 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Galumphing
I really want to write "No. Just. No." and leave it at that, but actual reasons are unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:CB. -- Merope 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: But add a tag to state that it requires sources! A quick google for seal and galumphing suggests the term is in wide spread use, and some might be academic articles (JSTOR). If it is true it is interesting to find a term that has moved from humour to science. (Flange of baboons anyone?). As for WINAD, maybe there there is enough to say on this form of locomotion to justify an article? Billlion (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Google gives a lot of results for this, but I feel that most of them are in fact copying from Wikipedia. I could not find a credible source. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- JS Brown - Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, 1894 - JSTOR... Fur Seals and the Bering Sea Arbitration ... a sudden dash forward, seize a female by the back and lifting her clear of the ground go "galumphing" away, apparently ... You cant say that was copied from Wikipedia! Billlion (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Skimming through the article the term appears applied to the locomotion of a male fur seal on p341 It is in double quotes, but there are a lot of descriptive and technical words (eg "harem" applied to seals) in double quotes in this article. It just seems to be the style. Billlion (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- JS Brown - Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, 1894 - JSTOR... Fur Seals and the Bering Sea Arbitration ... a sudden dash forward, seize a female by the back and lifting her clear of the ground go "galumphing" away, apparently ... You cant say that was copied from Wikipedia! Billlion (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOT. Dgf32 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jabberwocky. --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge origin of the term to Earless seal. Powers T 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete outright We'll never agree on where to redirect it. Mangoe (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete"Widespread use" isn't quite true. It certainly isn't used in the scientific literature. There is a good chance that it has been picked up with some frequency due to this very Wikipedia entry (as Morven suggests). The 1894 article is an example of colorful description, but is no way a standard (any more than the spelling "Prybilof" for the Pribilof Islands). A comment within the Jabberwocky article that it has been used to describe seal locomotion might be OK. Having an extra mention (or even any mention) in the true seal, or seal, or pinniped articles does not, in my opinion, contribute meaningfully to those topics. Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)- Well, it's already mentioned in the Earless seal article, for at least one example, but it's missing the origin of the term, which is why I suggested merging the etymology there. Powers T 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I understand Eliezg you are knowledgeable on marine mammals, so if the term is not in scientific use it should be deleted. Also I did a quick search on web of science. Non of the articles I found on seal locomotion used the term, and I couldnt find any scientific articles using the word in this sense. It does sound like a wikipedia created myth. As there are lots of web sites now picking up the terminology, and citing wikipedia as the source in some cases, is there a way after deletion they are going to find this discussion? Is there some section for "myths created by wikipedia that then grew legs and walked away" or galumphed away...? Maybe it is just a foot note to Jabberwocky.Billlion (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jabberwocky, as noted by Pixelface — how would it hurt to have this as a redirect? Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the Redirect idea is good. Most of what anyone would want to know about "galumphing" is in the Jabberwocky article, which could include mention of the fact that "galumphing" has apparently entered the English lexicon (see below), though not necessarily in contexts related to seals. I recast my vote above. Eliezg (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] OED entry and uses
intr. Orig., to march on exultingly with irregular bounding movements. Now usu., to gallop heavily; to bound or move clumsily or noisily. Hence galumphing ppl. a. and vbl. n., lit. and fig.
1872 ‘L. CARROLL’ Through Looking-Glass i. 22 He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. 1881 Punch 27 Aug. 94/2 The [H.M.S.] Hercules got up steam and went on her way westward galumphing. 1888 N. York World 13 May (Farmer), A green bobtail car that galumphed through Lewis Street at a high rate of speed. 1891 Harper's Mag. Aug. 378/2 He [a dog] became a.. playful, gracefully galumphing, and most affectionate monster. 1893 Nation (N.Y.) 29 June 476/2 It is his humor, his ‘galumphing’ humor, which strikes a chill to the heart. 1901 Westm. Gaz. 15 Aug. 2/2 A postman in uniform galumphed about on a farm-horse. 1903 Daily Chron. 31 Oct. 8/1 There would be such a galumphing up their stairs that peace and security would forsake them. 1930 C. MACKENZIE April Fools xii. 271 Viola..had slept through the stifled cries of her parents beneath the bedclothes when Beyle [sc. a bull-dog] was galumphing round their room. 1965 S. RAVEN Friends in Low Places vi. 129 In the hall was a galumphing lass with a lot of jerseys and a po face.
- 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.