Talk:Fetters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Fetters is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
[edit] VfD
from VfD:
Fetter Five word dic-def. Little prospect of improvement, I think. --Tagishsimon
- Redirect to Bondage (sexual). [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ─┼─]] 18:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find that a silly idea. There are many more contexts in which the word fetter, or fettered, is used, than a sexual context. What is it with wikikiddies and sex? --Tagishsimon
- Delete or Transwiki to wiktionary --Improv 18:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: No transwiki, as this is not a proper definition. No redirect, because "fetter" is a very common term for any prison, etc. No specific redirect is proper, and no Wiktionary. Geogre 20:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing to transwiki. Someone can come along and add Wiktionary:Fetter properly later. --Ardonik.talk() 20:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. (Rather poor) dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 20:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. "I am sick of the solace of sorrow/And fear what the prophets foretold;/I am tired of the tears of tomorrow/And wish that things were as of old;/I have felt of the force of the fetters/I have drunk of the draught that embitters/And all is not golden that glitters/And not all that glitters is gold." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) To those who have asked about the source of this alleged quotation, it seems to be very questionable. The earliest sightings are USENET postings to alt.quotations that appear as if they could be pranks; one posting attributes the quotation to "Winceburn."[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rewritten, but still may need to be transwikied. -Sean Curtin 00:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Great rewrite, but dicdefs don't belong here. I have moved the article to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Fetter and listed it on the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. My vote remains to delete. (By the way, to whoever expanded the article: linking almost every word in every sentence is frowned upon, because it leads to more substub dicdefs like this one.) --Ardonik.talk() 01:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- What links, if any, in the rewritten article were not directly appropriate to the topic? -Sean Curtin 04:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I was specifically thinking of object, bind, person, animal, ankle, foot, and metaphorically. Even if we have articles on all of those links, it doesn't mean Fetter needed to link to all of them. A link should be directly relevant to the topic at hand, leading the user to click on it and learn more about a related subject. I ask myself in these instances: "What does an article on $WORD add to $SUBJECT? Will following that link teach the reader more about $SUBJECT?" Too many links look distracting and amateurish in my opinion, though I make exceptions for things like dates that ought to be linked anyway. Had this article been a real article instead of a dicdef, I would probably have unlinked most of those words during copyediting!
Just my $0.02 USD.--Ardonik.talk() 04:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)- Well, by that logic, years should only be linked to if the article in question directly shaped the course of that year. I fail to see how "this is a metaphor" doesn't merit a link to metaphor, or how "this is used on the feet and ankles" doesn't merit a link to foot or ankle. Nevertheless, we seem to have quite divergent opinions on the matter, so I won't press the issue. -Sean Curtin 23:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I was specifically thinking of object, bind, person, animal, ankle, foot, and metaphorically. Even if we have articles on all of those links, it doesn't mean Fetter needed to link to all of them. A link should be directly relevant to the topic at hand, leading the user to click on it and learn more about a related subject. I ask myself in these instances: "What does an article on $WORD add to $SUBJECT? Will following that link teach the reader more about $SUBJECT?" Too many links look distracting and amateurish in my opinion, though I make exceptions for things like dates that ought to be linked anyway. Had this article been a real article instead of a dicdef, I would probably have unlinked most of those words during copyediting!
- What links, if any, in the rewritten article were not directly appropriate to the topic? -Sean Curtin 04:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Great rewrite, but dicdefs don't belong here. I have moved the article to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Fetter and listed it on the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. My vote remains to delete. (By the way, to whoever expanded the article: linking almost every word in every sentence is frowned upon, because it leads to more substub dicdefs like this one.) --Ardonik.talk() 01:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
[edit] BDSM
How on earth is this a BDSM stub? Fetters are not exclusively, or even primarily, bondage gear. Their designed, intended, and actual purpose is restraint. I've removed that tag. --Blackcap | talk 00:46, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] puzzle_lock versus Lock_puzzle
May I point out that puzzle_lock is not about a hidden mechanism which eventually may open if one has solved an enigma and is in the know of the mechanism or finds out about some kind of key to use. It is about a mechanism that reliably locks, without the use of a key, only to be opened by removing a chain (secured elsewhere) or by brute/destructive force. -- Klaus with K (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
