Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis

And the point is..?

What exactly is the point of this vote? To formalize the "tyranny of the majority" ? It's much easier to type {{subst:support}} than to engage into a productive discussion?

Shame, shame, shame... --Ivan Štambuk 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary, given that the RFD is clearly in support of deleting this page, but neither you nor Opiaterein will let that happen. Yes, productive discussion about the phrasebook would be great, but those interested in writing it don't seem to have thought about how to do so, at all. Conrad.Irwin 21:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't claim that about me - The last time it was removed, I let it go. What bothered me is that no one - not even the people who kept deleting it - would respond to any of my kickass logic. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that everyone else is just too stupid - that doesn't stop us being right, though I agree it should definitely count against us. Conrad.Irwin 22:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

...it'd just be nice if someone who's going to keep deleting it, if they would respond to arguments for keeping it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If only I could find a nice brief summary instead of having to wade through pages and pages of crap :). Conrad.Irwin 22:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Argument to delete: It's vulgar and will make more people vandalise wiktionary

Response: Wiktionary is full of vulgar entries and they can be protected.

Argument to delete: It's not in any other phrasebooks and other phrasebooks don't include vulgarity.

Response: There are phrasebooks completely dedicated to vulgarity. The Talk Dirty series, the D!RTY series and the Making Out series.

Argument to delete: It's useless to people travelling or learning a new language.

Response: Some people go to foreign countries just for sex, prostitutes etc. Some people are more interested in talking about sex than talking about religion, or how to get to the library. Let's not sell them short in favor of the people who hate sex, hm? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks. I think you forgot:

Argument to delete: It contains no information you can't get from have, big and penis with a basic knowledge of any language.

Response: Yeah, but it's the phrasebook.

Conrad.Irwin 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh yeah it does...lol. Those entries don't list inflections or the forms of the words that would go into the sentence. That's not always 'basic' for one thing, and for another you can't always say "I have a big penis" in another language. In some of the languages in the entry, you have to say "my penis is big" or else it sounds like you cut off somebody's dong and you're walking around with a large bit of manhood in your hand or pocket. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can show that this specific phrase occurs in any of the phrasebooks you mention, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. I haven't seen any citations, but perhaps I missed them amid all the mudslinging. -- Visviva 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that the phrase is completely useless as a phrasebook entry. If you are a middle school student and want to impress your friends with your foreign language potty-mouth then it is very useful. For anyone traveling abroad it is beyond useless. It is more likely to get in the way of a useful entry than it is to provide any sort of genuine service to our consumers. The entry, like SO many of the trash entries around here, was created in order to create conflict and controversy, which is all that it has done. Thanks for creating more opportunities for people here to waste time and thanks for distracting us from our work on a project which has so much more potential to fulfill. Phrasebook is just the new WikiSaurus, it is a quagmire in which we can debate about all the crap that doesn't matter. We clearly allow all kinds of "vulgar" entries in the dictionary, as we should. What we shouldn't allow are random useless entries which were created as a lark and serve no purpose. If you think we ought to have a phasebook here then by all means work on one. If you are just looking to make entries more and more extreme until you find someone to argue with then go play on Wikipedia or something, and bring your like-minded friends with you. - [The]DaveRoss 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Don't bother actually reading opposing points of view, just rave on and on about your own. :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you take it as read that Wiktionary should contain a phrasebook of sex terms (something that is likely to be disagreed with by many, though I personally don't find the concept particularly off-putting). You are also assuming that a dictionary entry is an adequate substitute for a phrasebook entry, something which I strongly disagree with (as do many others). I've tried a new style of formatting at Appendix:I don't speak/full - shall I move this entry to Appendix:Phrasebook/Sex tourism along with any others I find in a similar format (leaving a redirect behind) or is that a step in the wrong direction? Conrad.Irwin 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Appendix:English phrasebook/Religion, Appendix:English phrasebook/Health... Daniel. and I have been doing this for a few days now. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been creating indices, I'd like to move all the content to those pages. Are there disadvantages I'm belligerently ignoring? Conrad.Irwin 00:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The individual entries couldn't be found in categories like Category:English phrasebook/Religion, Category:English phrasebook/Health... I can't think how they would be formatted, with all the translation tables and everything... I think it'd just be easier to have them in the main namespace. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the problems with Appendix:I don't speak/full? Conrad.Irwin 01:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conrad, do you suggest that related phrases in all languages, their pronunciations, links to individual words, eventual antonyms and synonyms, are all to be placed into Appendix:I don't speak/full? Apparently, you merely created an index too, because it is a list of links formatted within translation tables. On the other hand, the Appendix:English phrasebook/Communication mentions a bit about phrase formation in addition to linking to existing entries of that language and subject, which isn't comprised only of phrases that begin with "I don't speak..." I think that it and other versions, such as possibly Appendix:Portuguese phrasebook/Communication and Appendix:Italian phrasebook/Communication may be able to teach how to create and recognize such phrases in each language, in addition to link to the existing individual terms from the entry namespace. I believe I cannot express accurate and long-term opinions about Appendix:I don't speak/full, because naturally all phrasebook appendices are under development and you sounded as if you have plans for extension of the appendix that you created, but I really saw no improvement yet in simply moving full entries or their translations from the entry namespace to a single page somewhere else. --Daniel. 01:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be ecstatic to see extra useful information added to the page, the current one is merely an import - the improvements I see of having them on one page are:

1. It takes less time to look up a phrase, as there is only one page load as opposed to two.
2. It takes less time to translate the phrases into multiple languages, a translator can just work on the one page.
3. Once you have one phrase, it's easy to find another related phrase - there's no need to hop through an appendix of category.
4. The translations for various phrases can be usefully compared without needing to mess around with loads of tabs.

I personally don't see the need for having the translations into more than one language on one page - but as that seems to be the way things are at the moment, I have preserved it. With the addition of Atelaes' script, it may be possible to re-collapse the translations sections and get a bilingual phrasebook as the default display. I also feel that there is no need to include antonyms and synonyms for phrases - all they will be is more phrases, and they should be on the same page as they'll be thematically related. Pronunciations, as I hinted, could be included in the space between the language heading and the translation table (as could any explicit links, semantic or not, to other phrases you wanted to add). Conrad.Irwin 01:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OH... wait a sec... I'm very confused, the English phrasebook seems to be aimed at foreigners wanting to speak English... It doesn't seem to need translations at all. God this is a mess, I'm going to have to go to sleep. Conrad.Irwin 01:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. If people can only get to the Korean phrasebook entries through Category:Korean phrasebook, then the phrasebook will only be useful to those who don't need it. :-) Most English speakers (including EIL speakers using English as a go-between language) are going to need to start from an English phrase which they want to encode in the TL. A complete conversion to a topical page structure (so that going phrase-to-phrase is no longer an option) might change this, but I'm not convinced there's adequate support for going that far. It makes sense for the English phrasebook entries to provide some English usage guidance in passing, but IMO we should expect the other Wiktionaries to provide English (etc.) phrasebooks tailored to the needs of their specific language communities. We've got enough to do in our own bailiwick. -- Visviva 03:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that this is a joke by Vagahn. Of course, it has been deleted and not since restored, so whether this vote passes or fails it shouldn't make any difference at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure it does. If the vote fails, the entry must be restored and kept for eternity. -- Prince Kassad 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the text of the vote about restoration. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if the community does not want the entry deleted after all, it's a logical conclusion to restore it. Or so I thought. -- Prince Kassad 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if someone does so, the vote would bar its redeletion, I think.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it was a joke entry. It is barely English. I have never in my life heard it, read it, or said it. Penis is a medical term, and a term that can be used on television. In American English, no one would ever say that. There is a comedy bit that sometimes appears on Saturday Night Live, where two Czech immigrants, both young men, have learned almost perfect English, but still can’t get the language right. They’ll say something that sounds very idiomatic, but include a metric measurement or something. "I have a big penis" is a perfect comedy line for them. It is comprehensible, but, since penis is a medical term, completely ludicrous and it would have 10,000,000 viewers rolling in the floor laughing. In American English, we would say "I’ve got a big cock" (not "I have"). Do the British say "I have a big penis"? I doubt it. —Stephen 20:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) dick is probable in BrE. Equinox ◑ 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

content of the vote

In my opinion, the vote could have been entitled moving all phrasebook entries outside main space and then it could pass much more easily. I feel uncomfortable about this entry as much as about I do not speak xxx, so I consider it incohærent to indorse only the deletion of the first one, whereas the second is going to survive RFD. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a logical step to pursue. Judging by the way this vote has been set up and defended, it unfortunately appears to me that certain cadre has something against this particular entry. What exactly is at the bottom of it all - I don't know. --Ivan Štambuk 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A cadre? Wow. Do I get a membership card or something? Ivan, not everyone who disagrees with you is part of a shadowy cabal bent on bringing down civilisation. Ƿidsiþ 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that some of them are? Good. --Ivan Štambuk 11:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think that you're at least a bit ideologically biased against this particular entry. Phallus is a symbol of masculinity and manhood, and a "big penis" implies "strong, powerful man", which is against traditional feminist doctrines of "gender roles" etc. Several of the other complaints have also been made or subjective or semantic grounds (an obscenity, "not something that we should have"..). It is important to completely separate usefulness of an entry to the entire real or potential Wiktionary readership, and our own personal beliefs and feelings. --Ivan Štambuk 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Silly. As if these people would welcome "I have a big vagina". It's not a gender issue. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everybody wants phrasebook entries outside the main namespace. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

outcome

This vote ought at length to be closed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Indeed I was debating making a comment to this effect earlier today. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably would close it as either no consensus, in which it should remain deleted or moved to a userspace until it is supported, or as a successful vote because 17/25=~68% support, which, in my mind, is just barely a successful vote, but that is just me. Razorflame 22:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the abstain votes. They're not just there for decoration. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean, don't forget to count them as "support" votes? Or don't forget to count them as "oppose" votes? —Ruakh_TALK 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on who's winning, naturally :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)