Talk:super straight

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023

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

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

---

super straight

Well-documented as a hoax campaign. Citations barely span a month, let alone a full year. Needs evidence of actual lasting usage. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There's use on social media, but the news media did lose interest after about a month. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove the page; I think you should have a chance to prove its attestability if it is in fact a neologism and not a protologism. Furthermore, you'd need to prove breadth of the term. Are there others using the term in the comments? How many views / likes does this video have? That being said, I noticed a typo (please see the italicized-boldened text): "Invented by TikToker @kyleroyce in a video posted February 21, 2021, in which he explains that he has begun indentifying as 'super straight' in order to avoid accusations of transphobia for not wanting to date transgender people". I believe you meant identifying, not indentifying. If so, please go back and correct. Cheers.

                                                            ∗ ∗ ∗

P.S. Please note the difficulty of attesting a term on Wiktionary, especially neologisms. As you've probably seen, I provided three scholarly sources affirming the validity of another sense which is currently facing great scrutiny despite compliance with Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. In other words, don't be upset if your definition is removed. For more information, please see established terms. —WbK Wordbookeeper — Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the typo. 98.170.164.88 08:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed. AG202 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Cited even more (including print). Ioaxxere (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

To whom is this term offensive? DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a good label would be. It's not a derogatory term, but lots of journalists/LGBT people got offended about people calling themselves "super straight". Ioaxxere (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the noun sense is still failing. AG202 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Just want to observe that being "a hoax" doesn't stop it being a word, however liberal you are. Compare bananadine, an imaginary drug that is a word. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

These cites are pretty mediocre, can we do better? Very mention-y in general. For citers of marginal terms, please put crappy cites in the citations namespace, if you must add them, only include cites which clearly demonstrate meaning and usage in the actual entry. - TheDaveRoss 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For a new term, it's unlikely that we will find much usage that is not mentiony. And an outright mention might be the best conveyor of the meaning. The set of "cites which clearly demonstrate meaning and usage" simultaneously without being mentiony is likely to be empty. DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Those are good indicators that a term hasn't gotten enough usage to be included. Also, mentions are, by definition, not conveying meaning. A mention may describe what the term means, but that would be like using a dictionary definition as the usage example. If it isn't possible, in this case, to find an example of someone saying something like "I am super straight, I would never consider dating someone who wasn't born a woman." Then the number of people using it (as opposed to the number of people talking about it) must be fairly small. The usage example, importantly, can come from places which are not necessarily valid for CFI purposes, or we can write our own usage example if a good one doesn't exist. - TheDaveRoss 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Meant to add this a few days ago, but the noun sense is still failing the year requirement. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added a quotation from May 2022. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed Ioaxxere (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Flag removal

Please, remove the flag. If it is proposed, it is not attested, so to say, and it should be removed. Argie222 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Re the back-and-forth about this: when I look at e.g. the bisexual and bisexuality entries, there's no flag, even though that flag is so much better established and known that it's lent its hues to bisexual lighting; asexual and asexuality, no flag; lesbian, no flag. And this does not seem to be a concept where understanding it is helped by an image, unlike some things where trying to explain it in words can be hard and just showing an image can get the idea across better for sighted users (e.g. W-sitting). So even if the concept and its flags were not a recent astroterf effort, there would not seem to be any particular reason to include them, but since they are, it seems prudent to leave them out. (I trust that everyone is acting in good faith, but it is noticeable that the entries where people have tried to stick symbols and flags have weirdly happened to be entries where those symbols are least established or accepted: I am recalling the similarish symbols that got added to trans woman, trans man, trans lesbian, trans gay etc a while ago, that someone similarly-recently made up.) - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a relevant intervention but I have to say that I agree with Theknightwho and -sche on this flag issue. I also agree with -sche on removing skoliosexual and transfan as antonyms. Argie222 (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@-sche Would you oppose adding flags to all of the entries you mentioned? Ioaxxere (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere I would. The WP article you referred to shows them because it’s an article specifically about the flags, whereas a flag is only peripheral here. If it’s very well-recognised and closely associated then it might make sense, but not otherwise. Theknightwho (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary to show flags in any of the entries that refer to orientations (though it might be useful in the bisexual lighting entry, to illustrate the connection / possible origin), but in the cases where there is a long-established flag, like with bisexual, it would be a lot less of a problem than it is here, and more of a "meh, whatever"; those terms and concepts and this one occupy dissimilar places in language and use and I would not expect us to artificially synchronize how we handle them. In other cases, there is not a [single] well-established flag but several well-established flags, and it would be a can of worms if we picked e.g. one of the lesbian flags (and I think trying to add them all would be a bad idea, since their importance to understanding the definition is marginal, and people on mobile complain about overmany images squishing content). - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)