Wikisaurus talk:penis/more

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

NOTE: One-eyed-wonder-weasel should be in the normal Wikisaurus entry. It has been used in comedy routines by George Carlin, and that should allow it to be official (Used on TV)

Vagina[edit]

If there isn't a vagina entry like this there should be. Also, there should be a link from here to there.

Deletion debate[edit]

Green check.svg

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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Wikisaurus:penis/more[edit]

I don't see what the value of this is. If these don't meet our criteria, let's not have them. Really, it has turned into another Sandbox for jokes, vandalism and attack definitions. If kept, semi-protect infinitely and revert to the last good version, but God knows where that is, or even if there is one. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, this page rocks! --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete. We are not Urban Dictionary. —Internoob (DiscCont) 22:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep A useful outlet. A way of avoiding being completely dismissive of users. This is yet another aspect of our slogan. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to delete this while keeping all the other /more pages of WS, or the List of protologisms. I would like to see some kind of extremely lenient mini-CFI for protologism pages, that would allow them to be used without being useless vandalism targets... --Yair rand 23:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, DCDuring, fuck that. We have an obligation to provide useful, accurate information to our viewers. We have zero, I repeat, zero obligation to make this project a fun little playground where any bored kid can muck around and feel validated. However, this page is rather clearly marked as "this is a bunch of worthless crap," and so I don't feel terribly bad about the fact that said advertisement is accurate. Additionally, we have a real page (Wikisaurus:penis) where our typical standards are in place. So, the page is pretty harmless, and if people want to keep it around, I'm not terribly bothered. That being said, I think the page is utterly worthless, and I would lose zero sleep if someone axed it. The fact that we advertise our crap pages as such relegates their harmfulness, but it does not somehow make them worthwhile. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'd like WT:LOP to go, too. We seem to have a few Appendix/Wiktionary pages that have turned into, or always were, sandboxes. We're nof Facebook or MySpace either I think Atelaes term of playground is an ideal word for this sort of 'appendix'. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a subject for Beer parlour, and ultimately for a full vote. I oppose deleting the page "Wikisaurus:penis/more" via the RFDO process. There has been a long-standing precedent to keep "/more" pages in Wikisaurus. While I am not sure of their merit, RFDO is an inappropriate venue for this sort of decision. If a decision is made to delete the page, all "/more" pages of Wikisaurus should be gone, together with the template {{ws more}}. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Wikisaurus semi-protection decided to accept the following proposal, quoted from the vote: "Making Wikisaurus pages less embarassing to have, by semi-protecting and moving undesirable material to "/more" subpages.". --Dan Polansky 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it much, but this was voted on, per Dan: I can't really see that there's anything more to discuss. Keep.​—msh210 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I have nothing more to add. Apart from silence. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is EncycloPetey's comment on the subject in that vote : "This gives them a place to run amok away from the more serious sections. (kind of like a giant catbox -- which is another thing I don't want to muck about in) --EncycloPetey 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)"
IMO he's been proven right. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Dan's point is a good one. This really is a BP topic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify: I am not saying that the "/more" pages should be kept; I am not sure about it. I am just saying that this is a decision about a set of pages and a template, one that overrides the result of a previous vote. And such a decision should be made through a vote. I estimate I would vote for deleting the "/more" pages, but not via RFDO process. --Dan Polansky 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Just...so very much delete. Ƿidsiþ 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)