Talk:Brass razoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
| Stub | This article is a stub and has been rated Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
Brass razoo is within the scope of 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. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
A fact from Brass razoo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 November 2007. |
 |
[edit] Information
Hey, there is a ton of information that could be added from this site. I would like to hear the thoughts of everyone else on how it should be organized please. *Cremepuff222* 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pas un Sou
I know this is not the place for original research but I do think that the "not a sou" source becomes a lot more convincing when translated into the French: "pas un sou". I could well imagine Australian soldiers, in France during World War I, corrupting this to "brass razoo", especially if they already used "razoo" in the raspberry sense.--TristramBrelstaff 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this says that it is "not a sou," but I understand what you are saying. If we can find a source that follows your thoughts I'd be happy to change it, but like you said, we can't have any original research. *Cremepuff222* 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expand, merge or redirect
This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning, usage and probable origins of a slang phrase. I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page that rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.
Options to fix the page here include:
- Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
- Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
- Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template) once the Wiktionary editors have moved their version out of their inbound-transwiki queue and into a standard page.
Rossami (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I would argue that the page is already more than a mere dictionary definition. As for the options to fix the page, options 1 or 2 are much more appealing than option 3. There is plenty of room for expansion, along the lines of other Australian slang terms such as smoko Bonzer, G'day, Mate (colloquialism) and Cooee. If a merge was to happen, then it should be with Australian English vocabulary. Either way, this should not happen through a PROD notice but through a merge discussion or, if appropriate, an AfD. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've read the page for a third time now and I still can't find anything that goes past merely lexical content. The content is good, but meaning, usage and origins are dictionary material. I'm not finding evidence that this particular phrase is so significant that the content would remain in the main article on Australian English vocabulary as more than a minor example. Because the full discussion of meaning, usage, et al would be most likely to be preserved and visible in the eventual Wiktionary entry, my preference is option three (but as noted above, not until the Wiktionary editors have moved it out of their transwiki queue).
By the way, I also have to note that I don't consider the others in your list to be a compelling precedent for keeping this particular page as is. Some of them should probably also have been transwiki'd to Wiktionary until and unless they are expanded. The ones that shouldn't have extensive discussions of significant social impact and commentary. I can't find any evidence that such social impact and external commentary exists for this page. Rossami (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've read the page for a third time now and I still can't find anything that goes past merely lexical content. The content is good, but meaning, usage and origins are dictionary material. I'm not finding evidence that this particular phrase is so significant that the content would remain in the main article on Australian English vocabulary as more than a minor example. Because the full discussion of meaning, usage, et al would be most likely to be preserved and visible in the eventual Wiktionary entry, my preference is option three (but as noted above, not until the Wiktionary editors have moved it out of their transwiki queue).
- I agree that it is far more than a mere dictionary definition. I am the admin who deleted it, along with a number of others which were in Category:Proposed deletion that day, many of which were marked as having been transwiki'd to wiktionary. I support the restoration. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- On what basis do you support restoration? What is the non-lexical content that you see on this page? Rossami (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because I followed through on the initial prod by deleting it, I felt it was pertinent to express my support of the restoration. If you wish to argue for its deletion, I recommend the Afd process. — Athaenara ✉ 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand my question. I have never argued for deletion and did not tag it for prod. I think it should be transwiki'd because the current content is lexical content, not encyclopedic. Transwikis do not and never have required AFD discussion. Deletion only applies when you choose to delete the pagehistory. So, let me ask again - what non-lexical content do you see on the page? What is here that you wouldn't expect to see in a really great, unabridged dictionary? Rossami (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you don't quite understand. Regardless of whether there is more than lexical content or not (and at least two people here feel that there is), the item has been already been transwikied. Despite this, its deletion is still disputed and therefore it should go to AfD where general consensus can be established. That is what happens when a PROD nomination is disputed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, since the Wiktionary editors have not yet moved the page out of their inbound-transwiki queue, the transwiki is not yet complete. Once that is done then, yes, the question of whether there is more than merely lexical content becomes critically important because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
The prod deletion is irrelevant. The deletion of the pagehistory was properly overturned. The question on the table now - the only question on the table - is whether this page can reasonably be expected to expand beyond a mere dictionary definition. If there is encyclopedic content here (and I'm still waiting for anyone to educate me on that point), then clearly the article should stay here. If not, then it needs to either be expanded or redirected. (A soft-redirect to the Wiktionary page is usually the best solution but a redirect to some other more general page may also work.) Redirects are outside the scope of AFD and are not deletion. To answer Graeme's point below, if/when content is moved, the redirect is considered sufficient to retain tracability and history. Rossami (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC) - Does anyone actually want to delete the article? As the creator I would argue for its retention. This article has been extracted for a WP:Did you know for the wikipedia front page, so it should be kept accessible online so that it can be read. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind it being deleted if consensus calls for it. *Cremepuff222* 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, since the Wiktionary editors have not yet moved the page out of their inbound-transwiki queue, the transwiki is not yet complete. Once that is done then, yes, the question of whether there is more than merely lexical content becomes critically important because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
- I think you don't quite understand. Regardless of whether there is more than lexical content or not (and at least two people here feel that there is), the item has been already been transwikied. Despite this, its deletion is still disputed and therefore it should go to AfD where general consensus can be established. That is what happens when a PROD nomination is disputed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand my question. I have never argued for deletion and did not tag it for prod. I think it should be transwiki'd because the current content is lexical content, not encyclopedic. Transwikis do not and never have required AFD discussion. Deletion only applies when you choose to delete the pagehistory. So, let me ask again - what non-lexical content do you see on the page? What is here that you wouldn't expect to see in a really great, unabridged dictionary? Rossami (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because I followed through on the initial prod by deleting it, I felt it was pertinent to express my support of the restoration. If you wish to argue for its deletion, I recommend the Afd process. — Athaenara ✉ 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- On what basis do you support restoration? What is the non-lexical content that you see on this page? Rossami (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
