Talk:computer virus

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Again the "virii" form. This is not used by those who work professionally in the field of computer virus or anti-virus research, nor by the medical world from which the linguistic parallel was derived. It is neither good English nor any kind of Latin, but is simply an error by people trying to appear clever. - TheNameWithNoMan -

Which is why it is marked "nonstandard" and reference is made to the note at virus. Robert Ullmann 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFD[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

[[computer]] + [[virus]]. Very transparent. Note that computer mouse got deleted. People are very tech savvy nowadays, they know that meaning of virus so computer virus is very transparent. Also usually just called a 'virus' for the same reasons. Translations can go at virus, most of the translations are for 'virus' anyway (like the French is just virus). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth looking into whether the word "computer" was required originally when computer viruses were first introduced. --WikiTiki89 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course it was. This is not a terribly unusual evolution. It is arguable that virus in the software sense has a distinct etymology, back formation from computer virus. As Wiktionary clearly is or at least sometimes pretends to be a historical dictionary, we can't really delete such terms. Even now it is sometimes necessary to use computer virus to disambiguate, especially for a non-technical audience. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course it was."? You can't use logic to predict history without evidence. --WikiTiki89 02:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for deletion, provided that the current definition of "computer virus" is substituted for the definition of the 4th sense of "virus", which currently reads "A computer virus". --Hekaheka (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter which came first? WT:CFI#Idiomaticity doesn't mention it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Renard Migrant Only if it was idiomatic at some time in the past. Do we exclude expressions that become unidiomatic over time? If we wish to exclude computer virus, would that be because it was a live metaphor in its early uses and remained live until virus ("computer virus") entered the lexicon? Would the rule of excluding live metaphors be one that operates only on past live metaphors but not on current live metaphors? DCDuring TALK 15:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we exclude unidiomatic expressions even if they were idiomatic at some point in the past, c.f. computer mouse. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? DCDuring TALK 17:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not useful to anyone. If you know what a computer and a virus is, you know what a computer virus is. If you don't know what they mean, look them up at computer and virus. The fact that it would've been useful 20 years ago is irrelevant; with that logic you end up with things that would've been idiomatic 500 years ago but have been transparent for the last 499 years. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utility is not part of WT:CFI. How would be decide that, anyway? Whose utility? Should we delete oak tree? railroad car? flower petal? car boot? I'd like to know whether there is a principle behind this other than the principle of pure whimsy, based on no explicit criteria as well as no facts. DCDuring TALK 18:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that it would've been useful 20 years ago is irrelevant". Funny, I thought that it didn't matter when a word was used, and if it had three citations spanning at least a year, it didn't matter if the years were 2010 to 2012, or 1010 to 1012 Purplebackpack89 18:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a word. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very hard to WT:AGF when your argument hinges on a distinction between word and term. Maybe we should make allowances for newbies. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this dude Renard Migrant's only been editing for seven and a half months. Maybe he should come back when he's been editing for a year, and he has better grasp of Wiktionary policies. Purplebackpack89 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Renard Migrant has been around longer than 7-8 months. This user is a reincarnation of Mglovesfun, the one who said the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Donnanz (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He knows them better than you. — Keφr 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from say, I used to have a dog? In the sense that, you could cite it 20 years ago, therefore it must be kept (see above). Renard Migrant (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty years ago I used to have a dog was just as SOP as it is now. Which might have not been the case with computer virus. — Keφr 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per lemming test; all major dictionaries I looked in either don't have "computer virus" at all or just say "another term for virus (in the relevant sense)". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently one cannot rely on your reports of other dictionaries. See “computer virus”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Though some (eg. AHD, MW) don't have the term at all and others have the main entry at virus, sometimes with a soft redirect (Collins and several others), some with only an inline "also" (Oxford), others have definitions (eg, American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Macmillan, WordNet). DCDuring TALK 19:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently one can rely on my reports of other dictionaries, since your findings exactly correspond with mine. The major dictionaries either don't have computer virus at all or else have it as a "soft redirect" to the computer sense of virus. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy is not my idea of a major dictionary; the main AHD doesn't have it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Angr AHD probably put it in the add-on to avoid typesetting and yet sell some books. I didn't mention the various glossaries that also have the term. In any event you simply asserted something without adequate research. Both the rhetorical advantage and the harm to the discussion can be seen from others citing the no-lemming argument that you claimed. DCDuring TALK 03:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a rather short-sighted policy to delete every term which has a faint whiff of SoPpiness about it. You have the usual problem with translations, so it should be kept as a translation target at least. Donnanz (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an utterly stupid idea, IMO - a lot of hard work for no real gain, and that's not taking into account those entries in other languages which would need modifying. Donnanz (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Not much work needs to be done. It's a simple copy and paste. --WikiTiki89 13:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, should we keep entries with no lexical merit because it takes effort to delete them? That's a bit like saying we shouldn't correct errors because it takes effort. In which case, what the Hell are we all here for? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep it anyway, regardless of lemming tests and what-have-you - common sense is needed here. By the way, it's listed in my Oxford hard copy with a redirect to virus; at least the term is recognised by them. Donnanz (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense says delete it as it offers nothing useful to the reader. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is part of our continuing war on users, to include things they don't need for our own purposes. It's selfish and should be stopped. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, that doesn't make one lick of sense. For second, I personally believe users other than myself would get use out of it. For third, "war on users?" What users are being waged war on here? You? I'm sorry, but I've never bought into the argument posited by you and Mglovesfun that this project goes south if we create two-word entries. I tend to believe that this project goes south if we have entries people are looking for and can't find, especially if other dictionaries have them. Purplebackpack89 21:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because how are English learners going to learn to put two words together if we keep doing it for them. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know that the argument that we shouldn't have words just because everybody can figure out what they mean can easily be reduced to absurdity. Purplebackpack89 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If people look up "red ball", it's hardly going to hurt them if they find it. We are never going to have a significant fraction of the two word phrases in English, so it's not going to hurt our users if they find it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain! Really can't decide. I take DCD's point that there was (probably) a time when a computer virus was not merely referred to as a "virus", and I wonder whether we should delete "mobile phone" at the future time when there are no longer wired/tethered ones. Perhaps not. Equinox ◑ 16:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter what else we do we need to craft a better definition of the fourth sense of virus#Noun "(computing) A computer virus".
The Hacker's Dictionary has: "virus /n./
"[from the obvious analogy with biological viruses, via SF] <def 1>A [[cracker program]] that searches out other programs and `infects' them by embedding a copy of itself in them, so that they become Trojan horses.</def 1> that when these programs are executed, the embedded virus is executed too,</def 1A>, thus propagating the `infection'</def 1B>. <opt C>This normally happens invisibly to the user</opt 1C>. <opt D>Unlike a worm, a virus cannot infect other computers without assistance.</opt D> <opt E>It is propagated by vectors such as humans trading programs with their friends (see SEX).</opt E> <opt F>The virus may do nothing but propagate itself and then allow the program to run normally. Usually, however, after propagating silently for a while, it starts doing things like writing cute messages on the terminal or playing strange tricks with the display (some viruses include nice display hacks). Many nasty viruses, written by particularly perversely minded crackers, do irreversible damage, like nuking all the user's files.</opt F>
"In the 1990s, viruses have become a serious problem, especially among IBM PC and Macintosh users (the lack of security on these machines enables viruses to spread easily, even infecting the operating system). The production of special anti-virus software has become an industry, and a number of exaggerated media reports have caused outbreaks of near hysteria among users; many lusers tend to blame <def 2>everything that doesn't work as they had expected</def 2> on virus attacks. Accordingly, this sense of `virus' has passed not only into techspeak but into also popular usage (where it is often incorrectly used to denote <def 3>a worm or even a Trojan horse)</def 3>. See phage; compare back door; see also Unix conspiracy."
Are any of the three implicit appropriately terse definitions (approximate boundaries marked with tags "<def>") even accurate in current use ("opt" tags mark additional optional content)? In what usage contexts would the various possible definitions function? DCDuring TALK 19:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep, unless someone convinces me that WT:JIFFY is a bad call here. — Keφr 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any actual evidence that WT:JIFFY applies here, merely assertions that the longer term must be older. I don't see any reason to believe that without proof. It actually strikes me as unlikely, especially if the term virus was first used by IT specialists who would have known from context that they were talking about viruses in computers rather than in living beings and so wouldn't have needed to make the term more specific. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Angr You might be right, but why do all those lemmings have the term now?
@Angr, Renard Migrant Also, if you are making a principled argument in favor of excluding live metaphors, such as this might be considered to have been, please say so. It was certainly not a living-thing virus that was infecting the computer. My excerpt above, from the Hacker's Dictionary, use the word analogy rather than metaphor, but that seems close enough. Or would you challenge that? DCDuring TALK 01:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hacker's Dictionary" is not really a dictionary, is it? It's more of a collection of subcultural anecdotes. That doesn't stop it from having value as a gauge of a subculture at a certain point in time (rather long ago, since the world of computing moves so fast) but it means it's likely to have lots of chatty senses and sub-discussions of things that a real dictionary would treat rather more tersely. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot better than some glossaries, but it is as you say. I was mostly looking for something on the subject that was published in the past. It was published in at least three versions. I was trying to find a shortcut to seeing whether early use of the term was in the form virus or computer virus. Maybe Usenet is a better bet for that. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to w:Computer virus, the first known reference to a self-replicating program as a virus is in a 1984 paper by w:Fred Cohen, which is reproduced in html format on his website here. Notice that the first sentence in the paper is "This paper defines a major computer security problem called a virus." Throughout the paper, both virus and computer virus seem to be used pretty much interchangeably. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That might be evidence that it was a live metaphor.
I'm not sure what evidence to look for beyond the lemmings (which seems sufficient to me, but apparently not to others). I don't think there is COALMINE evidence in English.
I suppose that I would be perfectly happy if we had a principled argument that said: 1., we don't care about what professional lexicographers deem inclusion-worthy, even though they are purportedly more resource-constrained than we are and hence should be more exclusionist than we are, 2., that virus was at its introduction a live metaphor that, because it was so apt, rapidly became lexicalized and widely understood by all parts of the IT community and the general population, 3., that computer is just used as a modifier in certain circumstances, such as for disambiguation, euphony, variety, context maintenance, etc, and, 4., that this is completely distinct from cases like computer program, flower petal, oak tree, car boot, . It would also be nice if there were some actual evidence that there was no significant group of users that benefited from inclusion, though it is hard to imagine how one could get such evidence (aside from the inclusion decisions of professional lexicographers). DCDuring TALK 03:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god flower petal. Just slash my arteries now. Equinox ◑ 04:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with leg 1 of the argument above. I honestly think that if 1-2 print dictionaries have a definition, we should too. Purplebackpack89 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really find the arguments defensible, but maybe someone could persuade me.
@Equinox Not all the definitions at “flower petal”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. are as nul as ours. Wordnet is the lead lemming with its usual followers. DCDuring TALK 05:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OED has an entry for Newton, Isaac, just one reason not have a lemming criterion for inclusion. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Renard Migrant: No, it doesn't, or, at least, I can't find it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My Oxford hard copy has "Newton, Sir Isaac" listed, the emphasis being on Newton. But I think this is a little bit of nit-picking by Renard Migrant. Donnanz (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: Oxford Dictionaries (whatever that is) has an entry, like you say; however, I took R.M.'s claim to apply to the full OED. An entry for “Newton” was first introduced in the 1976 second volume of A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, to which I don't have access to check; however, both the second-edition (1989) entry for “Newton” and the third-edition (September 2003) entry for “Newton, n.” mention “Sir Isaac Newton” in their etymology sections only. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, like I said. My hard copy is the 2nd revised edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English (2005), probably for the British market, and the back cover fell off ages ago. It's had a hard life. Donnanz (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: A copy of this, yes? I didn't know that any of Oxford's dictionaries listed biographical entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the very same. It has quite a few biographical entries: e.g. "Churchill, Sir Winston" and "Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan" amongst others. Anyway, who needs a sub to the OED when we have that free website you just discovered? Donnanz (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: Etymologies and sourced quotations are major benefits. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of etymology info in Oxford anyway, but sourced quotations? Do you mean OED provides that? Donnanz (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. For every word. --WikiTiki89 09:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't know that. Sourced quotations aren't my speciality. Donnanz (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Donnanz how long did it take you to write that comment? Wasn't it just too much effort? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not as long as you think. Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Renard Migrant, who gives a darn how long it took him to write the comment? You need to cool down on this AfDRfD. You're essentially using the flimsiest of arguments for deletion of this, and then you're criticizing people who disagree with you. FWIW, I am perfectly OK with us having biographical entries as well, provided they are brief AND something that is found in print dictionaries. I think if there are too many words print dictionaries have that we don't, people are going to use print dictionaries instead of us. Purplebackpack89 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "AfD"? — Keφr 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kephir: Articles for Deletion, essentially Wikipedia's equivalent of this project's Requests for Deletion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoosh. — Keφr 19:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took Aɴɢʀ's answer to be a joke, but I thought your question was a genuine enquiry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At first I took Kephir's question for a genuine inquiry too, but then I decided it was sarcasm and answered accordingly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A German political party. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about a little less joke-cracking about whether I use AfD instead of RfD and a little more discussion of the merits of this article and/or CFI in general? Purplebackpack89 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's count the votes. Keep 4 (DCDuring, Donnanz, PurpleBackPack, Matthias Buchmeier), Delete 5 (Renard Migrand, Hekaheka, Angr, Prosfilaes, WikiTiki). Delete has a narrow lead, but not enough to decide. Keep on the good argument. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the entry is kept, the translations should move where they belong. It's obvious that translations include words like "computer", "information", "data", etc. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was waiting for the outcome of this discussion first. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any controversy here. Translations for computer game, computer program, computer language should also reflect this and they usually do, many of them behaving the same way. E.g. 電腦遊戲 is a Chinese term for "computer game" where 遊戲 is just a "game" but Russian язы́к программи́рования (jazýk programmírovanija) literally meaning "language of programming" is normally used for ""computer language". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't about the translations. It's about whether it is SOP. But since you bring it up, the translations do show that term is SOP in other languages as well. --WikiTiki89 04:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not about translations but I was asked the question "what about..." and I have answered. Being SoP is not a single reason to delete an entry, anyway and we all know this, like all gas station, apple tree discussions we had in the past. For this particular term, the Lemming principle might be a good reason to keep it, for English and some other languages. If don't introduce Lemming principle, at least, as part of CFI, we're going to keep wasting time forever on RFD's. Someone has already done the hard job of selecting words for inclusion. computer virus@macmillandictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least two people are suggesting a lemming test (and we have how many regular editors, 20?). Why doesn't someone propose it? I'd encourage its proposal (though of course I've been clear I'd oppose it if proposed). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed and rejected once. Your turn. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left some comments on that discussion, and would support the lemming test being instituted. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Anatoli joined the ranks of keepers, it's 5-5 now, the keepers being DCDuring, Donnanz, PurpleBackPack, Matthias Buchmeier, Anatoli and deleters being Renard Migrand, Hekaheka, Angr, Prosfilaes, WikiTiki. Why not stop here and keep this bugger for lack of consensus for deletion and move on to something else? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So long as voting takes precedence over policy, which it does, you're absolutely right. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The votes on keeping and deleting are evenly split, rendering a clear absence of consensus to delete. Furthermore, for the benefit those concerned about voting taking precedence over policy, I note that tenable policy-grounded arguments have been made that this phrase was historically idiomatic, and therefore passes CFI. bd2412 T 14:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:computer_virus&oldid=49609361"