Talk:!o^@Inside-PalmBack

!o^@Inside-PalmBack
No Google hits, only one Yahoo hit which ultimately leads here. Your turn, gentlemen. --Duncan 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not bother with the song and dance. This is not English, nor a term in any sense.  It clearly doesn't meet CFI.  It's already listed at Requests for deletion, and should get zapped as soon as possible. —Michael Z. 2009-05-06 16:31 z 


 * I know pretty well it's listed there, but as obviously not everyone thinks it's "clear" it doesn't meet CFI (eg  "I think the questions is actually not that but the following two: (1) Does that gesture meet CFI? (1′) (As English, or should we emend it?) (2) If so, what pagetitle should we file it under? I think that the answer to 2 is that this pagetitle is the best choice: it's the one we use for sign languages, for example."  or  "As for whether the gesture meets CFI, consider that not all of our entries are for words, e.g. b, -er, and !." ) I got very curious how they're going to verify it here. (In other words I partly hoped this might help as more ammunition for the zapping you mention before the RFD discussion gets really surreal - after all, if gestures, why not whistling? There are set tunes with specific meanings ;-)). --Duncan 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but humouring such an entry by letting it get through to RfV sets a bad precedent. Next we'll have to RfV every conceivable gesture, smile, frown, raised eyebrow, body-language posture, and so on as “English terms.”


 * We can only attempt to verify actual terms. Things which clearly don't belong in any dictionary, and aren't included in WT:CFI shouldn't be brought here just to make a point. —Michael Z. 2009-05-06 17:45 z 
 * Let's not bother with the song and dance, indeed. RFD is discussing whether this is the kind of thing we wish to have, and what its pagetitle should look like if so. If that discussion ends up saying "yes, we keep this, and at this pagetitle", then this RFV will pass easily under the clearly-widespread-use rule (or with numerous citations from films, if you prefer). Otherwise, this RFV is moot, as the page will be deleted.—msh210 ℠  18:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict:) I almost stroke this, but now I think I'll wait for the numerous film citations of !o^@Inside-PalmBack. --Duncan 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume, Duncan, that you are not obtuse, nor being disingenuous. I assume that you are not awaiting film citations of a string of characters that starts with an exclamation point and the letter o. After all, my comment, immediately above, in this section, mentioned that citations for the term whose verification was requested here will be necessary iff the RFD discussion ends up saying that this entry's PAGENAME is to be that string, even though the entry is that of a gesture and not that string, so your awaiting citations is depending on that. I am thus assuming that when you say you await citations, it's for the gesture, not the string. I will try to dig up three; someone with a better knowledge of films than I (I haven't seen that many) should be better able, though.—msh210 ℠  19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to save you the time: of course I do want you (iff the RFD discussion ends up saying that this entry's PAGENAME is to be that string - I agree with that) to cite the very string of characters. A film shot of the gesture is no more a citation for such an entry than a photograph of a PC is a citation for computer {even if it had a capture reading компьютер). --Duncan 10:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. One might just as well say that Ancient Greek words all fail RFV because they weren't actually written in UTF-8. If the conclusion of the RFD is that this is an appropriate entry for the gesture, then verification of said gesture, in English-speaking contexts, is all that RFV can require. Your analogy is flawed: if someone added an entry for the concept of the computer, and it passed RFD, then all RFV would require is verification that the concept exists in English-speaking contexts. It would be stupid, ridiculous, and wrong; but the stupidity, ridiculousness, and wrongness would be in the RFD discussion, not in the lack of citations. —Ruakh TALK 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I don't think Wiktionary has an explicit policy against POINT-pushing, but I still think it's bad form. If you want to comment at Requests for deletion, pointing out the silliness of using [[!o^@Inside-PalmBack]] as an entry for the finger, since no one else uses that notation for gestures, then by all means, please do. But adding an RFV is not an appropriate way to make that point, and if the RFD discussion should end up in "keep", an RFV is not going to change anything. —Ruakh TALK 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with part of what you say, disagree with another part and don't quite understand yet another, but it doesn't matter. You're right that the RFD will either decide this way or that way (or, as quite often, not decide at all, at least in the foreseeable future), and this debate won't change anything. If RFD says that it's all right to make entries for gestures, use ASL as their titles and call them terms in the English language, such entries can be then verified by just about anything. Anyway I removed the tag. --Duncan 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Striking per msh210: insofar as this is our entry for the birdie, it is clearly in widespread use; and we're currently in the middle of an RFD discussion to determine the farness insowhich this is our entry for the birdie. —Ruakh TALK 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RFD
See Appendix talk:Gestures/!o^@Inside-PalmBack. - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)