Talk:sir, this is an Arby's
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
sir, this is a Wendy's[edit]
-sche stated they are seemingly unattested. J3133 (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have seen the Arby's variant online, but not at the "clearly widespread use" level. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've seen the Wendy's one many many times, the Arby's one not as much, but still used. AG202 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, FWIW, I've seen both, I agree they both exist, I just don't see evidence that they exist in durably archived places, because by nature they usually occur as replies by one person to another person, so they're mostly found in replies (quote tweets, etc) and comments sections. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Cited for Arby's with at least three journals/magazines that have print versions, though I do agree with the discussion in Beer Parlour that CFI needs to be seriously updated. I still don't know why we could have a word that has three hits on Usenet remain, while a word or phrase that has 10000+ hits or more on Twitter has to specifically be found in other sources. It really doesn't make sense in this day and age, whether logically or practically. AG202 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have supported removing modern usenet, after 2000-2010, as a source of citations. But there is a good reason to consider old usenet a superior source to modern online comments. Usenet was, back in the day, mirrored on many independent servers and backed up on magnetic tapes. I am doubtful of the citations being uses rather than mentions, but I will not object to closing this as kept. One policy change we might consider for Internet slang (as opposed to the proposal to add basically any old typo-laden crap that gets spewed out one day) is to tolerate mentions where for higher class words we require clear uses. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Cited for Arby's with at least three journals/magazines that have print versions, though I do agree with the discussion in Beer Parlour that CFI needs to be seriously updated. I still don't know why we could have a word that has three hits on Usenet remain, while a word or phrase that has 10000+ hits or more on Twitter has to specifically be found in other sources. It really doesn't make sense in this day and age, whether logically or practically. AG202 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- I must have missed any motion to skip modern Usenet, but I would probably be on board: it's just crappy spam now, isn't it? I hang around some ancient retro-computing communities for systems that pre-date Usenet and even they use some fuckin' phpBB by now. Usenet is great for finding "hacker" slang of 1985 or 1990 though. Equinox ◑ 04:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added one cite for the Wendy's version, from the blurb part of a published book. Everything else I find is mostly oblique references in headlines to news stories about incidents that occurred at a Wendy's, or in the comments sections of news stories, which don't pass our durably archived rule. If we allow YouTube, I can find two more uses there....Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- it's the kiwi magic Equinox ◑ 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have also seen it the other way around, where a person is described making a fast food order and being told in response, "sir, this is a bank". bd2412 T 06:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is a hoary old joke along these lines: "Optician, I think I need glasses." "You certainly do; this is a shoe shop." Equinox ◑ 00:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
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.
Per citations. I suppose sir is capitalized as a term of address. J3133 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The reason it's capitalized in the citations is because it's mentioned as a standalone sentence, in which it happens to be the first word. But yes, the ‘proper’ way would be to capitalize sir/ma'am in the vocative, like mom → Mom. However in practice the distinction is rarely made online, and this is an internet slang term. Maybe list it as an alternative form instead. — 69.121.86.13 19:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I withdraw this request. J3133 (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)