Talk:nigfant

RFV discussion: May–June 2022

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

nigfant

Per turdler above. I think this user is creating terms mainly on the basis of their usage on the specific anti-black forum chimpmania.com... and am quite tempted to speedy them as low-effort, but I've been scolded about speedying lately. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to say that I too am tired of getting scolded in connection with rfv. I just avoid this page as much as possible, because I know I'm going to get my ass whooped if I post here. Even this post will be used against me, as if I am in the wrong. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox, Geographyinitiative Independent of the discussions of actually changing criteria for inclusion, I think it might be worth requiring that terms which are obviously offensive be added with supporting citations or be subject to speedy deletion. They could be listed at RFV as deleted entries awaiting supporting quotes, but it would help ensure that terms being presented are supported by evidence, and limit the number of extremely low effort trash that some people enjoy adding for some reason. It is a simple bar, if a term merits slur, offensive, derogatory, etc. labels it needs to have CFI compliant cites, or the RFV process is flipped and deletion happens up front. I get that many people are hesitant to put any further barriers in the way of including every sound ever uttered by human mouth, but this doesn't really change anything. - TheDaveRoss 15:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: I would have agreed with you a decade ago, but "obviously offensive" could cover pretty much anything now... Equinox ◑ 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cited by User:Geographyinitiative. Though I have to ask: Why did you create that citations page? The quotes are exactly the same. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha To assuage concerns, I will find one more cite for the citations page.
I don't see Wiktionary as it is today (a pitiful shell of what it could be), but as it will become in several decades time (a powerful and respected source of knowledge). When Wiktionary reaches that epoch, all entries will have Citations pages filled with cites, with only the high-quality cites kept on-entry as example quotations. I have the "growth mindset" for Wiktionary. So to me, there's no need to wait for a literal difference in citations between the entry page and a potential Citations page before I create a Citations page. I'm laying a foundation for growth. Any existing entry with a red page for citations is a slap in the face to the project. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)