Talk:vandal
Since the word vandal is derived from the name of the tribe and not the other way, shouldn't the first definition be that of a member of the tribe and only the second one that of a destroyer? Even Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists them in the order I believe in. --Red Prince 04:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Older usages should come before newer usages. Ideally, it would be nice to switch between ordering by age of usage and by frequency of usage but that's not possible at the moment so I think age of usage is the more important. — Hippietrail 04:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Very well, then. I have just switched it to that order (I also reshufled the translations accordinagly). --Red Prince 05:22, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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.
The adjective, although the verb entry is not very clever either. Isn't a member of the tribe usually spelt Vandal, or can it be both? Anyway the whole adjective entry needs looking at, I suspect it's attributive. DonnanZ (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, when referring to the Vandal people it's always capitalized. For this reason, Lombardic exists, but lombardic does not, and thus too Alemannic and not alemannic. And the adjectival sense does seem like attributive use of the noun to me, also the one at Vandal. The usual adjective is Vandalic. — Kleio (t · c) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or vandalous and vandalistic for sense 2. DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Sense: “(computing) A person who needlessly destroys, defaces, or damages software. The anonymous vandal was blocked after going on a vandalism spree.” Tagged by 2A01:598:99BB:D1EE:BDD5:A538:2EFC:98F9 on 20 February (today; “not really “different” from sense 1, only that the thing being vandalized is something digital”), not listed. This sense was added by Br00pVain (Wonderfool) with “(computing) {{rfdef|en}}” and the usage example on 24 December 2021. The definition was added by Inner Focus on 17 June 2022. J3133 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, it's redundant, but perhaps sense 1 should be reworded since I think "other people's property" is too restrictive (apart from software, someone who decides to tear down a historic building that they own might still be described as a vandal, for example). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- agree with your assessment and with al-muqanna have to agree also when we're namedropping different enwiktionary users Dan Polansky wrote on his talk page -- was it here or on cz.wiktionary that he found it << insolent >> for those with under 50 edits to comment, vote on discussions .. where he waited years ( ?) or in any case until he had thousands of edits .. someone made a remark about his edit totals -- essentially his wiktionary +talk edits were equal in percentage to his main-namespace edits to he was there to cause trouble -- or << rule >> , impose on other people there ideas of how the project should be run -- still unclear to me .. but i agree with you it seems completely extraneous can't this wonderfool find something better to do -- or people in general who add extra definitions and senses not only here but on WP -- i've been in that position actually, i know how it is, such foolishness, such a waste of time, if you want to make your mark on the world, why don't you go outside, why don't you develop yourself as an individual rather than anonymously editing an internet web site Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: A person who damages software is not likely to go on a "spree". I think this sense is confusing the Wiktionary or wiki vandal (who can damage a lot of pages quickly, but those pages are text content, and not software/code) with the traditional virus writer or "hacker" (who might do a lot of damage to programs and systems, but doesn't go on a "spree": it involves writing careful code and releasing it in one place). I also can't remember any situation where I heard a virus writer or "hacker" called a "vandal", and I'm very old (I remember Chris Pile!). Equinox ◑ 07:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- (But cf. cybervandal, which like all those cyber- words is probably a fleeting 1990s coinage relating to Web sites. We know there was software and systems long before.) Equinox ◑ 07:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair when I mentioned people vandalising things that aren't other people's property above one of the thoughts I had was someone going rogue on Github or NPM or whatever, which could easily amount to a vandalism spree on software and doesn't even have to take much effort nowadays. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've deleted sense 2 and tweaked sense 1. Please revise further if needed. - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Resolved? (Sense removed; other sense modified.) - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved, per the above. bd2412 T 03:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)