Talk:Bah! Humbug!

RFV discussion: May–July 2024
— Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 16:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is likely to easily pass RFV Purplebackpack89 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Bah!" said Scrooge, "Humbug!" is a quote from the original Dickens work punctuated in that matter

Purple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * a Google books search also yielded several results for Bah! Humbug! in the title or text


 * It's bullshit. Speedy it. Like saying Kiss! My! Ass! Denazz (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't make comments such as those, it's inappropriate
 * I object to you speedily deleting this page in the middle of a discussion <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 23:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like an RFD matter, not RFV? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We've a little bit of a problem here. This was speedied, without explanation and erroneously. The editor who speedied it then left the project. What happens now? And how do we get it undeleted? <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll restore it. Equinox's contributions to the dictionary are (were?) essentially unparalleled when you put quality and quantity together - the guy was just on another level - but he got frustrated with people pretty easily. This deletion was a fairly typical bad-tempered-Equinox action.
 * However, @Purplebackpack89, please provide three good cites punctuated Exactly! Like! This! The entry has been sent to RFV and I think that is an appropriate venue. There is no value in RFDing if actual usage of the term can't be established. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One down, two to go. As I said above, I think finding the other two can happen fairly easily <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

RFV closed, as the entry failed WT:RFDE. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speediable bullshit. RFV is irrelevant. Denazz (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "bullshit" and "Kiss! My! Ass!" aren't valid reasons for deletion, . The deletion has been contested and the RfV reopened.  Please do not speedy-delete tag it again.  <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 01:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On balance, I favour deleting this entry. I think it may not be worth keeping it since it's just an (old-fashioned) typographical variant of . In general I'm not in favour of having entries for every possible variant if they differ only in punctuation or typography, and not in spelling (e.g., bah humbug!, bah, humbug, bah, humbug!, bah—humbug). Reasonable numbers of variant forms can just be added as quotations to the lemma, and if necessary a usage note can be added to provide some explanation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is is RfV, not RfD, . And can you point to where in CFI it forbids variants?  CFI tends to allow them. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 01:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this is RFV but I’m of the view that deletion is in order regardless of whether it is verifiable or not. We could move the discussion to RFD but we might as well deal with it here. As far as I can see, WT:CFI doesn’t directly address the point at the moment. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May–July 2024
Fine, I'll send this bullshit here. Lol, the antagonists of the RFV (Purple,Equinox and Wonderfool) are the three least diplomatic users on the site, no wonder it is messy...anyway, I hope to see this entry out of my dictionary before the end of June... Denazz (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, block nominator Nominator has provided no rationale for deletion and nomination is a personal attack. From a RfD standpoint, if bah humbug is considered to pass CFI, than its alternate forms are too. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 12:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that WF also takes the piss out of himself. I don't see any reason for deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason for deletion. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Repeating the view I expressed at RFV, I think it may not be worth keeping it since it's just an (old-fashioned) typographical variant of . In general I'm not in favour of having entries for every possible variant if they differ only in punctuation or typography, and not in spelling (e.g., bah humbug!, bah, humbug, bah, humbug!, bah—humbug). Reasonable numbers of variant forms can just be added as quotations to the lemma, and if necessary a usage note can be added to provide some explanation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 18:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete similar case as "DONT TREAD ON ME". We (usually) don't include typographic variants (ſ/s, v/u, etc.). Jberkel 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is consensus to include words featuring obsolete typographical letters. It’s just that we haven’t created enough such entries. Inqilābī 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as an alternative case form of entry, if amply attested. On a different note, I am also of opinion that common nouns in older English texts that were spelt with an initial uppercase should have their entries. Inqilābī 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * NO-O-O-O-O ... Please!! Mihia (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It may not be obvious to a non-native speaker, but you can't tell what the case is for either word. In English, just about any word will be changed to uppercase when it's the first word in a[n orthographic] sentence: "What would you like to eat?" "Applesauce." "Applesauce?" "Yes, applesauce." If memory serves, the phrase started out as the juxtaposition of two interjections: bah and humbug, which would make this SOP. As "humbug", especially, has become obsolete, this has become a phrase with an idiomatic meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since we include German nouns with an initial uppercase even tho we could have done them entirely in lowercase by analogy with Latin words which are included as lowercase despite the fact the Romans used only majescule letters and also by analogy with noun entries of most languages— it could be argued, albeit weakly, that the above-mentioned English words are entry-worthy. Inqilābī 05:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My view is a bit more nuanced: I think the entry should survive if this precise capitalisation and punctuation was a widespread form that was especially worth documenting. As it is, though, there is no evidence that this is true, so I say delete. (Note this is not an RFV argument; I would still advance it if (say) the term passed RFV but it was particularly difficult to find good uses, suggesting this orthographic/typographic variant is rare.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. One can find plenty of examples of phrases being broken up like this. I don't see what makes special, aside from its pop-cultural significance. Binarystep (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jberkel. PUC – 12:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: You could have one rule for, , and , and another rule for the likes of this? DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They are toponyms / proper nouns so if you don’t distinguish between the slightly different orthography then one name can be mistook for another, which can cause serious inconveniencies. It’s beyond lexicography. Inqilābī 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK. They can still be a minefield. I can find St Mary's in a Sydney suburban railway timetable from 1970 (with St. Mary's in the index), and St Marys for the same place in Wikipedia. DonnanZ (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Word0151 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I added I! Love! You!, even more common a phrase. Denazz (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, that was a silly idea (as silly as Bah! Humbug!, TBF). Denazz (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you wasting everyone’s time by trolling? Inqilābī 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't see that we need multiple entries for this kind of different punctuation/capitalisation style, where there is no material difference in meaning. Where would it end? As far as I can tell, our convention is not to capitalise (other than proper nouns) or add exclamation marks to the lemma forms of exclamations, but to list them in lower case and without the punctuation that might typically accompany them. Therefore, on that basis, this one seems to be rightly listed at bah humbug. The original form, which is not exactly Bah! Humbug! anyway, can be explained at bah humbug, and indeed already is. Delete. Mihia (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of "where will it end?" (basically a slippery slope) as an argument for deletion. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to the two we presently have, just in a few minutes I can find Bah Humbug, Bah Humbug!, Bah, Humbug!, Bah! Humbug, Bah ! Humbug !, BAH HUMBUG, Bah humbug, Bah, humbug and Bah-Humbug. Would you allow entries for all of these? If not, how would you decide which to allow and which to disallow? Mihia (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per TTO and Sgconlaw. OTOH, when words use different letters, like in the case of u/v mentioned above, I do support having entries, because...as Widsith put it when someone said u/v was just "different encoding": "you don't think it's a problem that the 'encoding' happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet?" (How could we expect a language learner to know that the unfamiliar-to-them word vs is to be looked up under vs if it means versus [you don't know what it means, that's why you're looking it up], but to be looked up under us when it means us?) But universal (translingual, situation-independent) rules like "when looking up a word, try looking up only the word, not the word+punctuation" (because punctuation is only rarely part of the word) are reasonable, so I don't see as much value to this, or freeze!, Freeze!, Hands up!, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as a trivial typographic variant of bah humbug. Benwing2 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, unconvincing – more like a whole sentence rather than reflecting necessary lexematic abstraction? Fay Freak (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted, with 12 delete votes against 5 keep votes. I'll close the RFV too. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)