Talk:creeper

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

Irish slang[edit]

Anyone know what a creeper is in this context?

“I think I must have a bit of the kleptos in me; I’d rob anything,” says Ronny (...) Ronny spoke to The Irish Times last week at a facility for homeless, drug addicted and alcoholic men. He says he needs to keep stealing to feed his drug habit. He describes himself as “a creeper as well as a burglar”.

? Gronky (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: February–March 2022[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.

Sense: "Minecraft enemy". Per WT:FICTION, this term isn't used independently of the fictional universe it originates from. It's about as page-worthy as Enderman, Koopa, Starman (the EarthBound enemy, not the surname), Waddle Dee, or any other well-known videogame enemy. Binarystep (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an RFV issue. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Compare cyberdemon, much more famous and long since deleted. There are millions of games with characters unique to them. Equinox ◑ 22:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks comrade for your wise judgement. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 23:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still should've been an RFV issue to see if it's used figuratively. AG202 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is used idiomatically (particularly for something unexpected that destroys one's work/plans/etc.). I agree this should've been sent to RfV. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, can we reopen this and send it to RFV? That's at least 3 folks who've wanted to send it there. @Equinox AG202 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFD-failed (already deleted) without prejudice to recreation if entries are added to Citations:creeper. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m rather disappointed that we never even got as much as a response even though three people including another admin said that it should be sent to RFV, one even before the speedy deletion was done, so the discussion shouldn’t have been closed. And so, I object to the closure per the RFD guidelines and will re-add the definition later as clear discussion has taken place, and request permission once again to move it to RFV. @Fytcha AG202 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the sense and moved to RFV: WT:RFVE#creeper. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a candidate for RFV because by definition it does not meet CFI, whether it has three uses or three million uses. We do not include fictional universe things defined only with reference to their original context. See Darth Vader for a definition of something that has escaped its fictional origin to merit inclusion. Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vox Sciurorum: I don't understand. If someone managed to dig up three quotes along the lines of "That bomb blew up like a creeper!" (independent of Minecraft), that surely would attest this sense per WT:FICTION, no? WT:FICTION doesn't prohibit similes and it doesn't require a figurative meaning as Darth Vader has it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. @Vox Sciurorum See Pikachu and Jigglypuff which have passed and the other examples I listed at the RFV discussion. Independent usages outside of the universe pass WT:FICTION. AG202 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pikachu with its current definition should be deleted as not meeting CFI. Jigglypuff is defined by its extra-universe meaning with reference to the original definition, like my Darth Vader example. Creeper is not. If you're so confident that there is a real world meaning then add some citations and change the definition to match them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pikachu has already passed RFD for meeting CFI. Consensus was reached. Whether or not you personally believe that it should be deleted, there was consensus to keep it. And no need to be snarky, I already stated that I would look for citations in the RFV discussion and have been looking for them. And that’s the whole purpose of RFV, to find quotes, and if there aren’t any, then it’ll be deleted after a month. AG202 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also: the examples at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Fictional_universes. AG202 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


RFV discussion: March–June 2022[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Rfv-sense "(video gaming) A mottled black-and-green enemy in the video game Minecraft, which attacks the player by chasing them and exploding.", see WT:FICTION. Tagged as RFD here and removed out of process here. See also WT:RFDE#creeper. I've restored the sense as this is clearly an RFV issue. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother really? I don't see how this can be cited independent of reference to the game universe, since even the definition mentions Minecraft! Equinox ◑ 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could've at least had this discussion first. See also: Pikachu, Scooby-Doo, which unsurprisingly you nominated for deletion yourself, Jigglypuff, Count Dracula, and more in Category:en:Fictional characters. Regardless of how you personally feel about these entries, consensus and CFI point towards finding figurative usages before deleting the entry, so you really should not have speedily deleted it, especially considering that you've participated in these discussions before. Let alone the fact that someone else already suggested that it was an RFV issue before you speedily deleted it, and then you then chose to ignore repeated suggestions to move it to RFV. That overall bothered me. In terms of the RFV though, @WordyAndNerdy I know you mentioned cites for it specifically in the RFD discussion, and I can look for some as well later. AG202 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember stating that I'd seen this used figuratively in the wild. I don't remember stating that I'd already found CFI-compliant cites for it. I would've added them to the citations page if I had. I haven't had much luck with this even using precise search terms. "Like a creeper" mostly nets comparisons to clinging plants and creepy/stalkerish people. "Creeper" + "blow up" returns equal parts Minecraft game guides and science-fiction novels where various monsters called "creepers" are destroyed with explosives. I encountered the same signal-to-noise problem when I tried to attest figurative usage of Chewie. The cites are out there but there's only so many times I want Google to force me to identify boats and traffic lights because it thinks using advanced search functions means you're a bot. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dug deep and found some diamond blocks...I mean, eleven years of Twitter cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{look}}

Vote on citations is here. Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the only one to vote in favour of keeping this, I guess it fails. Kiwima (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima the vote was never listed at WT:V, therefore no-one knew about it other than via the link you posted just above. I think the vote should be rerun. This, that and the other (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those votes have every appearance of being a unilaterally-implemented punitive roadblock thrown up when you were called out for unilaterally closing multiple RfV nominations as delete despite their promise of being attestible through online sources. I'm not playing along with this pointless game. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WordyAndNerdy, AG202: It is time for us to finally start implementing Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived. There is Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/February#Forming_a_standardized_process_for_discussions_about_online-only_sources_and_attestation but nothing has been done as a consequence of it. I am considering to create a formal vote covering:
  • The creation of a separate voting venue where source websites and associated constraints can be proposed and voted on within a 2-week period. This includes negative proposals, i.e. votes to bar a website or a certain kind of website from being used as a cite in the future.
    • The additional constraints can include the weight of a cite from this source (durably archived sources have weight 1, i.e. they count as one each towards the three-citation rule), whether an RFV discussion is necessary to discuss whether the specific citations are permissible, which time frame the citations may be from, whether the content (in the case of social media networks) has to come from specific contributors (e.g. government institutions) etc.
  • The creation of a list of these decisions, linked to at the end of "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks." in WT:CFI (influenced by w:WP:RSPSS).
What do you think? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. We definitely need a separate venue for this type of issue. AG202 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, except that I'd shy away from allowing certain websites to be completely banned from use for cites, and that I'd argue that cites for specific entries'll usually have to be handled individually, on a case-by-case basis. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the CFI update would lead to a big communal discussion on which online sources can be considered fit-for-purpose and that further discussions would be opened as needed. That never materialized. So any forward momentum on this is a positive in my book. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also did not know about this vote; I've added my support now. AG202 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vote has ended with no consensus. It's a disappointing outcome; the vote had some procedural issues, caused mainly by the fact that the cites are all in simile form (arguably we shouldn't have ever had sense 17.1 at all, because all words take on a generalised meaning in that way when used in a simile), plus there were a few opposers who had problems with the very idea of the vote.
I suppose there is no choice but to put RFV-failed here, but hopefully things can be ironed out on the procedural front so we don't get into this mess in future. This, that and the other (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why, one, the sense "something that explodes ..." was created and, two, why all the citations along the lines of "like a creeper" were assigned to that sense. The distinction between similes and figurative uses is obviously lexicographically relevant. The fact that there is such a deep-running misunderstanding on this website about what lexical items even are and about what senses are (diff) really takes the joy out of it for me. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, with these kind of procedural issues and the fact that it ended in no consensus, the sense at 17 should be re-added, and a re-vote (not at the same venue!) should be in order. However, I'm not an admin, obviously, so I'm not going to implement that myself, but that's just how I feel. AG202 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are no good under current rules. Therefore, the entry should be deleted under current rules. If you want a different result for this kind of entry get the rules changed. If you can't get the rules changed, then operate within the rules. DCDuring (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was supposed to be about the sources in question. However as @This, that and the other mentioned, the vote had multiple procedural issues, and so, in my opinion, it should be redone. This entry can definitely exist under the current rules, see: melanoheliophobia which passed. This would not require a change of the rules, either. AG202 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like a valid pass to me. DCDuring (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring It's part of the changes that were voted upon in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling_of_citations_that_do_not_meet_our_current_definition_of_permanently_archived. So yes, we did get the rules changed, actually. AG202 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Discussions[edit]

In case anybody wants to start a vote to restore the literal sense (formerly 17, NOT 17.1; diff), here are some discussion links:

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:creeper&oldid=69591940"