Talk:I have a big penis

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Excellent. Seems I was wrong about the phrasebook all along. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


I have a big penis

Until we come up with some criteria for what "phrasebook" entries are, and how they are to be distinguished from normal dictionary entries, we really need to have a freeze on creating this kind of thing. Otherwise apparently any old shit can be allowed to stay here because "different rules apply" for "phrasebook entries". Not that I've ever seen this in a phrasebook. Ƿidsiþ 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I'm pretty sure it's a joke. As I said, it's hard to create phrasebook satire entries because the genuine entries look like satires. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
My favorite is Hebrew: (not used). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. A useful phrase in sex tourism. I even think of creating I have a very, very big penis specially for me. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
For sex tourism wouldn't I have a big wallet be more appropriate? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I have a big penis may perhaps grant a discount, no? Anyone from Thailand? --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep 4 teh lulz. XD  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like we're going to face the question of whether part of the justification for our getting resources will or will not include being a resource for the children of protective parents. As I understand it, WP and Commons have had to face the issue. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, the faster the better. This is not such a common phrase that it should be included. In fact it's one of the most stupid utterances I can think of. --Hekaheka 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It may not be a common phrase among Finns, but why deny more favorably endowed nations the opportunity of using the phrase? --Vahagn Petrosyan 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Grow up! --Hekaheka 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have amended Wiktionary:Policy#Users to indicate that we don't give a damn about parents who are trying to protect their children from vulgar and sexual content. Would it be better to:
  1. have some kind of adult-content warning for the entire site or
  2. wall off parts of it in some way?
"Not censored" has been a core tenet of all the Wikimedia projects since very early in our history. I don't think we need to take any action that isn't being taken by our sister projects, which would seem to have considerably greater grounds for concern. I haven't noticed any content warnings on Wikipedia pages or Commons galleries, and IMO something like commons:Penis needs it a lot more than anything we have (or are ever likely to have). -- Visviva 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to have been some ruckus about some erotic images at WP and Commons. I am not sure about the outcome or status. I was mostly interested in incorporating this into our policy as accurately as possible so there is no need for much subsequent discussion on individual cases. It simplifies some aspects of presentation if we are largely excluding younger children (preteens?) from our target user population. DCDuring TALK 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've undeleted this for a couple reasons. One - It's no less useful than I don't speak Old French, and two - It's way more interesting. It's more fun learning a new language when you're talking about your junk and not your house. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There's the flaw in your argument. Wiktionary shouldn't be fun --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I think we shouldn't make Wiktionary obscene. Quality will definitely suffer, even if we include all possible dictionary words in the main body, including obscene words. A normal phrasebook wouldn't have this kind of phrases. I start to think the same about I'm horny. --Anatoli 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary is already obscene. We have a great number of vulgar words and phrases. If you don't like the naughty bits you don't have to go to them. What exactly makes Wiktionary a 'normal phrasebook', or even a normal dictionary? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What is "a normal phrasebook"? If you mean an actual paper-based book, then I'm afraid we're definitely not "a normal dictionary" either, because we already include countless words that "normal" dictionaries would or will never list. They are confined by factors such as the 1) finite amount of obsolescent paper medium 2) utility to their buyers. None of that concerns us. They're selling a useful product, we're trying to do the same thing - and more. The only relevant question should be: how useful this phrase is.
And I don't see how this would affect quality. You can make the entry for any obscene word just as good and thorough as for any non-obscene word. Most of them are in fact comparatively higher in quality, simply because of the higher amount of scrutiny they get. --Ivan Štambuk 07:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This is not something that should be in the phrasebook. --Yair rand (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
And I don't speak Old French is? If you're going to campaign so hard for such utterly useless entries, you're going to have to come up with something better than "this is not something that should be in the phrasebook" when it comes to things you don't want. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete, nobody has suggested specific Phrasebook criteria under which this would qualify (other than the "any phrase anyone might want to use, ever" criterion, which does not seem tenable). Cannot find this phrase in any other phrasebooks. -- Visviva 03:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The resentment of those against keeping is strong and they are in majority, I'm going to delete it, so we don't spoil the good idea of phrasebook work. --Anatoli 03:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we add I have with some examples. It'll cover all cases of having something that one wants to brag about. --Hekaheka 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
We already have the entry have to cover all cases if complete sentences are somehow undesirable. --Daniel. 10:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I have a big penis may go. But mark my words, history will always suspect you, opposers, of having small penises... --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we don't have penises at all. --Hekaheka 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh my god, Heka, what happened? Was it a crocodile attack? I hear crocodiles in Finland are ferocious. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What's a big penis good for, if you don't know there are two sexes? --Hekaheka 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Homophobe. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep. The arguments against this are that it's vulgar and useless. We already have assholeloads of vulgar and useless entries that no one seems to care about. Some even fight for keeping the utterly useless ones. The English phrasebook has 300 entries, many of which are simply "I don't speak..." followed by a language. If we had one for every living language, we'd have thousands. We also have some questionable inclusions as I don't eat fish, how do I get to the seaport, he's unconscious, let freedom ring, I don't speak American Sign Language, I'm ... year(s) old (what kind of format is that?), I'm mute, do you have a menu in Swedish, I've been raped... There is no reason other than censorship to include these but not a simple fun entry about the size of your manhood. Please do not delete this entry again until it has been thoroughly discussed and until we have real criteria for phrasebook entries. And don't lie about how many times it's been deleted. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT the reason to delete this isn't to do with censorship, it's to do with this being tosh. I'd interpret this as a satire by Vahagn. The only reason it doesn't work is it's not more ridiculous than the ones we already have - but it is ridiculous. I'll add a little more to the Beer Parlour. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Im for deleting all vulgar, useless and idiotic entries, including this. --Hekaheka 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Heka, sex industry is giant (revenue >100 billion $ per year, bigger than Hollywood and all sports), sex-related terms account (topically) for a vast majority of all Web search terms (just look at our own page hits toplist, ignore special pages because they're not searches), and whether you like it or not, these vulgar and idiotic terms are very widespread, and have tens of millions of search hits (and are much more used colloquially than actually written). Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary: if it's used, it must be added. The only question pertinent here is: is this phrase useful and widespread enough so that it merits inclusion? --Ivan Štambuk 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You argumentation of porn industry is off the point. We are talking of a phrasebook entry. I have understood that phrasebook is supposed to contain simple sentences that a traveller not knowing the language too well might need in a foreign country for getting by. This definitely isn't one of them. In fact, if one does not know a language and the culture thoroughly, one should carefully avoid uttering controversial sentences. So far, two situations have been mentioned in which one might use this phrase:
  • When talking to a prostitute in order to get a discount - complete tosh, the prostitutes are only interested in the contents of the customer's wallet.
  • In connection with the porn industry - I have hard time imagining when, but possibly when offering oneself to work as pornstar. Also in that case it is useless, the employer is going to want to see it before he believes you.
Or do you guys actually suggest that you would use one of the translations to impress a non-English speaking girl you meet in a discotheque? Good luck! And as the last point, which is decisive from lexical point of view: this is as SOP as it can get: I have + X + Y . There are probably 1 billion adjective + noun combinations that could replace X + Y in this sentence. Why, of all those, it should be "big penis". I would likewise argument against e.g. I have a sports car or I have a beautiful wife. It is simply useless in a dictionary. --Hekaheka 10:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sex industry reference is actually very much to-the-point. By demonstrating the global scope and influence of sex industry, effectively the usefulness of the phrases related to it is proven. There are millions of people around the globe right now making love or masturbating, and while doing that assessing the size of their (or their partner's) love organs. Its usefulness is undeniable. In upcoming football World Cup in South Africa, probably more money will be made by tens of thousands of prostitutes, than by FIFA selling tickets.
I have understood that phrasebook is supposed to contain simple sentences that a traveller not knowing the language too well might need in a foreign country for getting by. - If that were true, then this entry should have been deleted on sight. But is that all the phrasebook entries are good for? In the age of Web and instant Internet-based communication? Come on! You can learn any language without setting a foot outside your bedroom. In fact, these are the people that we primarily target - netizens. The focus should be on them, not on the non-existing paper version of Wiktionary.
All phrases are sum-of-parts entries. The only difference in including vs. excluding them should be strictly in their utility. As it has already been pointed out, words and phrases typical of human mating rituals are much more likely to be uttered than any of the haughty literary vocabulary that people show off with. Slang, obscenities, vulgarisms...these constitute a better part of the spoken language. We can ignore it hiding behind the faux Victorian morality facade, but that's the real language, in its non-artificial, colloquial register. We shouldn't be passing moral judgments on it, but simply describing it in the same way we describe the language of literary works.
Yes there are many such I have a(n) <adjective> <object>. constructs, but most of them are not useful and are rarely spoken. Average speaker has a limited vocabulary of some 2-3 thousand words, which can be combined in a finite number of ways (you cannot apply every adjective to every noun). Some criteria should be established on what kind of phrases should be included. I'd say everything having >50k hits on top 3 search engines in the respective language is worth including. I have a beautiful wife seems fairly common, but I have a sports car not so. --Ivan Štambuk 09:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the Internet traffic is porn-related. I strongly suggest that we keep these, either in the main namespace or in an appendix. These phrases could be very useful for those who seek them. --Ivan Štambuk 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All right then, maybe we should start to think of clever answers for the poor girls to whom Vaughan et.al. will use their newly learned language skills. Oh, I think you are a big dick might be a good starter. --Hekaheka 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If we keep this, then we should also have the derived term I have a very big penis, the antonym I have a small penis and maybe some female equivalents. Perhaps we could also have I have a twelve inch penis, but I don't use it as a rule. SemperBlotto 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No 'inches', please. Normal people count in centimeters. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. If they're useful and frequently used, they should be included. That is, after all, the inclusion criteria for phrases, isn't it? --Ivan Štambuk 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I like I have a very big penis, and I have a small penis, but going into sizes could be like the I don't speak and I am x years old piles. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I can safely say that "I have a big penis" will be said infinitely more often in regular speech than half of the entries in the whole of wiktionary. Sex sells and sex is what people are more interested in. There's really no need to censor it. You gotta laugh, really. Though I agree with maybe somehow tagging the more explicit terms with a warning in the future if you're worried about Wiktionary's integrity.Jakeybean 17:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I personally find all this argumentation with the porn industry looming over you in Internet far from convincing. Internet has also made storage of large quantities of classical literature possible - virtually all writings whose authors died before the 1920s are easily accessible. So it is up to the user to decide what he is willing to udertake in Internet, and up to his character and interests. On the other hand, if we consider the spread of the phrase the primary criterion, why do we lack phrases like miserere nobis peccatoribus, et lux perpetua luceat eis which are uttered by hundreds of millions of Catholics on masses, funerals et cetera? They are certainly more widespread than those salacities (being uttered more often), but on quite different venues (concert halls - hundreds of masses and other sacred music being performed daily, churches) and are pious. Please, do not let wiktionary become a præferred reference for porn addicts and all kind of lascivious folks! These entries should be moved outside main space, to say the least. Not because we should censure anything, but in order to maintain an honorable and reliable audience. Vandals already overwhelm numerous pages with their obscenities, so if they come across Wiktionary while searching for obscene sites, vandalism here will become even more minatory and præsumptuous. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
We're never going to run out of vandals. I seriously doubt that our having obscene entries is going to increase our vandalism. Like those women that say pornography increases violence against women. We lack Catholic phrases because no one has added them yet. And I don't think that they're more widespread than people bragging about their dicks. Catholicism is in decline. Pornography is on the rise. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The appendix should be called "Teenagers' obsessions with their own body parts". It could include phrases like my left breast is bigger than my right breast, I have pimples and my nose is the wrong shape.--Makaokalani 12:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
While teenagers may be excessively obsessed with their penises, most men are also. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion shouldn't be about psychology. It should be about lexical merits of "I have a big penis". There are none. It is just "I have" + X. --Hekaheka 17:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of things have passed since the 1920s Bogorm. In the old days, content-creators were a limited group of professional writers. Today we have 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more content creators. Most of them are inaccessible (private IM, e-mails etc.), but lots of them are. There is virtually no difference if a word has been used by some Nobel-prize writer or on a blog of some horny 12-year old from Botswana. And I'm afraid that masses around the world are no longer held in Latin. 99.9% of Catholics doesn't have clue what those Latin words mean. OTOH, millions of Hindus utter Sanskrit mantras every day, which they also don't have a clue what they mean. And these we should add, just like we add Allahu akbar that Muslims use in English, shalom that is used by Jews and so on. I'm sorry Bogorm, but the days when works were written for "honorable and reliable audience" and are gone and are never, ever coming back. For linguaphiles such as yourself, things with massive vulgarization of discourse are only going to get unimaginably worse, and they are never, ever going to get better. That is a battle that cannot be won, and it doesn't make much sense to maintain the lexicographical "standards" of the past when Zeitgeist was so different, that even the word penis was offensive enough that they used membrum virile instead. What some of you are suggesting with blocking obscenities is effectively as telling biologists to only study "pretty" species like pandas and big cats, and ignore much more populous and diverse "creepy" creatures of the night and deep ocean. --Ivan Štambuk 09:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "penis" being in it does not kill its potential merits. It's a useful construction - I have [(article) maybe] (adj) (noun). Do we have any others like that? None that I've seen. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. fatuous entry. The only reason I can see for it is to prove that Wiktionary phrase book policy needs work. Conrad.Irwin 16:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Undeleted. By what criteria is this a "fatuous" entry, as compared to other much less useful SVO sentences inside the Category:English phrasebook ? If phrasebook policy needs work, that's a separate problem altogether. The only reason that I see why people object to this entry is because it contains the word penis. --Ivan Štambuk 06:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ivan here......sort of. I think that this entry is worthless and should be deleted, but we really can't delete it until we figure out exactly why we're deleting it. I'd delete half of our phrasebook entries if this were a dictatorship headed by me, but it isn't (anyone who wants to start a vote to make it one could count on my support vote.....and probably only my support vote). We really need to figure out what phrasebook entries we want and why. In all honesty, I do hear guys using this phrase (and variants) all the time. It's entirely conceivable that someone might want to know how to say it in other languages. I think we'd be entirely justified in refusing to assist them in this endeavour, but if so, we need to figure out why. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Earlier Anatoli said that this would never appear in a "normal phrasebook". Well, allow me to introduce you to the Making Out series. Making Out in Spanish is just one of far more than I was expecting. A quick look over shows Making Out In Japanese (which I bought about 6 to 8 years ago in a Waldens), Making Out in Chinese, Making Out in Vietnamese, Making Out in Korean, Making Out in Tagalog, Making Out in Indonesian, Making Out in Thai, Making Out in Turkish. There's also Talk Dirty Spanish, Talk Dirty German, D!RTY Spanish, D!RTY German... There are many more such series, but I think by now I've made the point that there are phrasebooks out there that do include things that include at least sections that concern sex and sexual situations, if they aren't completely dedicated to those subjects, including everything from picking up people at bars to when you're alone in bed. So you can find such phrases in paper phrasebooks, and there is market for them, because you know whether you like it or not, some people do still have sex, and some people do like big penises, and some people will be thrilled to find such phrases on wiktionary. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a big penis — AEL
  • Delete as part of a cleanup on what's actually in the phrasebook section. (Regardless of the size of the associated economy - I didn't know *that's* any reason for keeping/deleting terms??? I thought that was restricted to what proportion of said economy trickles our way... That is, the bigger the trickle, the more important to add sector-specific phrases, no?) \Mike 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. :P I'm not gay nor am I overly obsessed with the size of my penis but I agree with the points put forward in favour of keeping this. I don't think "I have a very, very big penis", etc are needed though.

@ Bogorm What Ivan said...>.> Seriously, I don't think that logic applies. I'm sure there are plenty of people using the internet that don't give a damn about religion. Or do you want Wiktionary to discriminate against atheists and agnostics? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete. google books:"I have a big penis" gives me 21 hits, not enough for a phrasebook entry. google books:"I have a big penis" intitle:phrasebook has zero hits, so does not save this entry. --Dan Polansky 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, not all phrasebooks have "phrasebook" in their title. I pointed out a few series of them earlier. The Making Out series, the Talk Dirty series, and the D!RTY series. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Google Books is a privately owned website by a creepy Big Brother organization, that contains illegally scanned printed-only texts, and is no way representative of actually spoken language that netizens unleash on free Web. "I have a big penis" has tens/hundreds of thousands of hits. --Ivan Štambuk 05:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If Google count matters, we should delete this (2,2 M raw hits) and add I have a small penis. It gets 10,5 M hits, which would seem to indicate that it is 5 times as useful as "I have a big penis". On the other hand, we are hardly going to need several entries of the format "I have a/an <<adjective>> penis". --Hekaheka 05:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be deleted because it has enough web hits (>100k on all major search engines), but we should also add I have a small penis. Usefulness as a CFI can only be measured in absolute terms: we shouldn't delete a phrase just because a variant phrase is x times more used. If they both pass a certain threshold, both should be added. --Ivan Štambuk 05:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
google:"I have a small penis" gives 912,000 hits. Further, google books:"I have a small penis" gives 64 hits, not enough for a phrasebook entry IMHO. google books:"I have a small penis" intitle:phrasebook gives 0 hits. Beware that you need to search in quotation marks, otherwise you get wrong numbers: google:I have a small penis gives 1,760,000 hits; google books:I have a small penis gives 29,000 hits. --Dan Polansky 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained why using intitle:phrasebook is only a weak guideline, as not all phrasebooks have phrasebook in the title. Just like Dracula wasn't called Dracula: A Novel. Although some novels do weirdly point out that they are in fact novels.... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
We must have different setting in our Googles, because I used quotation marks as well. In Dan Polansky's way google:"I have a big penis" gives 192.000 hits and google books:"I have a big penis" gives only 21 hits. That's 5:1 and 3:1 to small dicks. Small penis -variant is more frequent by a wide margin, no matter how you count it. A little bit below Dan Polansky opined that 26 hits for "I need a diaper" is too few. --Hekaheka 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have already undergone three delete/undelete cycles. Perhaps we should somehow try to iterate towards a solution instead. It may help to take an interim count on votes. I interpret the discussion so that there are 12 deletes and 5 keeps. The deletes are: Ƿidsiþ, Mglovesfun, Hekaheka, Anatoli, Yair rand, Visviva, Bogorm, Makaokalani, Conrad Irwin, Atelaes, \Mike, Dan Polansky, and the keeps are: Vahagn, Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, RIC Optiaterein, Ivan Stambuk, Jakeybean. Sorry for missing some typographic finesses. Feel free to edit the list, if I have misinterpreted somebody's comment. Some participants in the discussion were so neutral that I did not dare to place them in either of the camps. Does deletion require a qualified majority or is a simple majority enough? --Hekaheka 13:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I edited my name for "typographic finesses".  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You voted delete like three times. My keep was a strong keep complete with an actual logical argument, unlike a lot of the oddly biased delete votes :p Try not to put votes in people's mouths. I counted 7 votes for delete and 4 for keep. Neskaya bolded his deleted and Ivan bolded his undeleted. If you're opposed to the phrasebook, then take it up in a debate against the phrasebook - not against cocks. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I counted my vote only once even if I mentioned deleting more often. I recorded the list of names to facilitate checking. Which of them is wrong? A "strong" vote is not any better than an ordinary one. Besides, my "delete" is also strong. I have nothing against cocks and this discussion should not be about them, but about an entry in a dictionary. You may have noted that I have not proposed to delete entries for cock, dick, penis or whatever names this organ may have. I'm only in favour of deleting an entry which adds very little if any value to Wiktionary, since there are zillions of entries that could be created on the basis of "I have" + <article> + <adjective> + <noun>. As an example, the sentence I have a nice job yields 6 times as many Google hits as I have a big penis, and I have a good job about 70 times as many. Vulgarity may not be an argument against an entry, but even less is it an argument for keeping one. The discussion on this entry and the discussion on existence of Phrasebook are two different discussions. This entry should go, whatever happens to the Phrasebook. --Hekaheka 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes you have a lots against cocks. Your original comment from June 3rd [1] was: (Hekaheka:) "Im for deleting all vulgar, useless and idiotic entries, including this.". This later argument as if the phrase is useless because it's non-lexicographical came only as an ex post facto justification for your premeditated attitude based on the moral judgment of the entry, which you were careless to utter so openly. This growing concern of the old-timers for keeping "improper words" out of Wiktionary is very disturbing. It's indicative of the elitist nature of the early dictionary compilers, where dictionaries were thought of as "language lawbooks", and not language archeology, what they really are. --Ivan Štambuk 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
My original comment was: "This is not such a common phrase that it should be included. In fact it's one of the most stupid utterances I can think of. The comment that you refer to was my sixth and I wrote it only after being provoked by some very biased comments, which I regret and apologize. I repeat: that an entry deals with sex is not a justification for exclusion of an entry, but it is not an inclusion criterion either. Just to prove my point of not being against vulgar entries per se: you can find my name in the edit history of e.g. kyrpä, vittu and nussia, which belong to core vulgar vocabulary of Finnish. I have also translated English sex-related terminology into Finnish. QED. --Hekaheka 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Then on what grounds do you actually object to this entry? Why should we exclude this fairly common sentence, and include countless others of much lesser frequency of usage? --Ivan Štambuk 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(@Hekaheka)No, plese, do not count me among the users favouring the deletion. I strongly support moving this entry and all its semblables (i. e. all phrasebook entries) outside main space where people cannot come across them so easily. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have stricken my original, frivolous "keep" vote. I now favour deleting this. However, this vote should also be interpreted as a vote in favour of deleting the whole phrasebook or, at the very least, consigning its content to appendices or the like.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This particular discussion of the phrase "I have a big penis" can by no means be read as a vote on whether the phrasebook should only be in the appendix rather than in the main namespace. That is simply not the discussed subject. --Dan Polansky 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This phrase is part of the phrasebook section dealing with sex. People have sex and will at some point in their learnings need to know how to talk about it. All arguments against keeping I have a big penis are based on: its vulgarity, which is silly because we have tons of vulgar entries; it's usefulness, which is completely subjective and can't be decided by 7 people who wouldn't use it, half of them because they don't have penises; anti-phrasebook stances, which aren't remarkably relevant here. Yair, champion of pretty useless "I don't speak" entries voted against it simply because it's something he thinks "should not be part of the phrasebook", which not all of us agree to. If you don't like the vulgar entries, nobody's forcing you to edit them or look at them. If you don't think it's useful, that doesn't mean someone else won't. If you don't like the phrasebook, go to BP like everyone else. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody here pretends that people don't have sex. In fact that would not be desirable, IMHO. Believe it or not, but also I like sex very much. But that's not the point. People have all kinds of things, but I would oppose any "I have" + <article> + <adjective> + <noun> combination on the same grounds I oppose this. --Hekaheka 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Hekaheka, we both know what's all this about: you're just jealous god didn't give you a penis. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Most boys grow out of their phallic stage at the age of six. Some, obviously, do not. --Hekaheka 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Freud was a quack and you know it...:p Anyway it appears that your issue with these entries is their SOP-ness... which isn't an issue for phrasebooks, which frequently repeat themselves. So instead of focusing on this entry, maybe you could go to WT:BP and campaign against the whole phrasebook, which is bound to have hundreds of very similar phrases. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, but it is completely out of context to write here estimates about other people's penises or speculate with their existence/nonexistence. This is supposed to be a dictionary and not an adolescent chat site. --Hekaheka 04:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete until we have a better understanding of how the phrasebook should work. Wikisaurus was also once drowning in sexonyms, and I think it put that project back significantly. Once we've developed better CFI for the phrasebook, this sort of thing really might have a place in it; but in the meantime, I think we should stick to stuff that more obviously belongs. —RuakhTALK 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete as it's a fatuous entry. --Neskayagawonisgv? 21:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explicate what exactly is "fatuous" about this entry? You're generally against sex terms, against phrasebook entries, against this specific entry..? --Ivan Štambuk 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not very useful for people travelling overseas or for people learning the English language. Not common enough to warrant its' own entry. Even though it gets 100,000 hits in all major search engines, most of the other Phrasebook entries get hits in the tens of millions on major search engines. Don't try to persuade me to change my !vote because it won't change, and nothing you say will make me change it. Razorflame 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't try to persuade me to change my !vote because it won't change, and nothing you say will make me change it - This is very "fundamentalist" line of thinking. Reasonable person would weigh up the pros and cons and draw a conclusion on them, leaving it susceptible to change should further arguments arise. Adamantly sticking to a single alternative serves no good. --Ivan Štambuk 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Vote count: For delete: Ƿidsiþ, Mglovesfun, Hekaheka, Anatoli, Yair rand, Visviva, Conrad.Irwin, \Mike, Dan Polansky, Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, Ruakh, Neskaya, Razorflame; 13 in total. For keep: Vahagn Petrosyan, R·I·C opiaterein , 50 Xylophone Players, Ivan Štambuk (estimated); 4 in total. --Dan Polansky 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)