Talk:BroShep

RFV discussion: June–July 2021

 * See Talk:FemShep.

RFV discussion: August 2022
The citations don't seem to meet the requirements of WT:FICTION. DCDuring (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This survived RfV a year ago. This is attested 100% with print cites. That should satisfy even the most hardline of deletionist cranks. Fandom slang has always fallen under the umbrella of "all words in all languages." Someone tabled a proposal that would've banned fandom slang last year and it was rejected by a landslide of 13-1. I am sick of having to re-litigate this every time someone refuses to understand what WT:FICTION actually means, or decides they want to trash our coverage of fandom slang because they personally see no value in it. I'm sick of having to fight tooth-and-claw for years for needed policy changes, only to have certain users choose to ignore them because it doesn't suit their personal preferences. Someone who has unironically bemoaned being "sickened" by the "suppression" of racial slurs thinks we shouldn't have fandom slang because he doesn't like it. Thinks that maybe if he keeps nominating stuff he doesn't like for deletion people will forgot about the 13-1 vote in favour of allowing fandom slang.
 * I'm done. Find someone else willing put in the time and effort required to gather cites. But experience has taught me the users who most readily grind their deletionist axes on RfV/Rfd tend to be the ones least willing to actually roll up their sleeves. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know, how dare anyone have an opinion that isn't yours. The criteria for the name of a place or character in a fictional universe is: "...they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense...", and DCDuring is suggesting (how dare he) that perhaps a bunch of citations referring directly to the character in the game might not meet that criteria. Also, how is one supposed to roll up one's sleeves and provide a lack of evidence? - TheDaveRoss  12:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That section is understood to apply to names of places & characters created and named by the universe itself. Thus, examples like &  would have to find attributive cites (Charizard failed RFV for example). However, to my understanding and how @WordyAndNerdy has explained in the past,  &  were created by the fanbase and aren't used in any official media; thus, they fall under fandom slang and just need to have 3 cites in general that are uses. See also: the vote that WordyAndNerdy linked that failed spectacularly when it tried to make explicitly fandom slang have the "3 attributive cites" criteria as well (along with sche's abstain vote about this specific word in question) AG202 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with what is official and unofficial in the Mass Effect universe, but the first quote said that they used "FemShep" and "BroShep" in the advertising which let me to believe that it was official. If it is purely a fan term then I still think it should be moved to an appendix, because duh. - TheDaveRoss  12:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They didn't use the words or  in the advertising. The first quote is saying that the ads used both Shepard designs. I also don't see why these should be moved to an appendix simply because they're fandom terms. "Because duh" isn't a good reason to override years of precedent. Binarystep (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, I am not sure what in the CFI makes this worthy of inclusion. If fandom slang falls outside of FICTION, this would be a "name of specific entity"? The guidance there is that most should not be included. - TheDaveRoss  12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That guidance would not apply here, per: "Names of fictional people and places are subject to the “Fictional universes” section of this page." and seeing that fandom slang is outside of the purview of WT:FICTION, there's no clause that bars fandom slang, and as mentioned, the most recent vote to change this rule failed 1-13. Nonetheless, if you still feel that it should be deleted, that'd be a case for WT:RFDE, not here, though I'd expect a similar result to Talk:everypony. AG202 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fandom slang isn't currently handled differently than other words of their type, so this would be handled as a name. Names are generally not kept unless they are used attributively, or are not specific to an individual. is ostensibly a pronoun so it is handled as a pronoun, which has simpler criteria for inclusion. -  TheDaveRoss  14:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's not how I've seen precedent applied here with entries in Category:English fandom slang, but anyways, it should be taken it to WT:RFDE. AG202 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First, why don't we get proper definition(s?) and proper citations. RfD may not be necessary. DCDuring (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Proper names aren't kept, but nicknames certainly are, and and  definitely qualify as such. Binarystep (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also that ^ @DCDuring. AG202 (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some nicknames are kept, some are not. As far as I can tell they fall under the same guidance as names of specific entities. A nickname of a fictional character doesn't really feel like dictionary material to me. - TheDaveRoss  12:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedily kept. Going a bit out of step here, but it's already survived RFV before, and clearly passes WT:FICTION as it did not originate in the game universe itself. This is not the first time you've nominated something ignoring the actual policy put in place, see: the RFD discussion at Talk:melanoheliophobia, so I'd really suggest thoroughly reviewing WT:CFI. If you really don't want this word on the website, then at least take it to RFD. AG202 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No such process as "Speedy Keep". RfV remains open. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read all of the relevant material from WT:FICTION, especially
 * "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense" DCDuring (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my responses to TheDaveRoss. as well. That clause is understood to not apply to fandom slang. Take it to RFD. To avoid edit warring, I won't close it again, but this is really not the place for this. AG202 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It reminded me of . We've got him too! Equinox ◑ 11:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The citations remind me of a discussion of fictional characters in literary criticism. Do we need a definition forEmma based on citations using the character's name from books about Jane Austen's work of the same name? We seem to have a bias favoring recent fictional characters. DCDuring (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You still don't seem to have read the 13-1 vote or any of the previous discussions where fandom slang's relationship to CFI has been considered before. Maybe don't accuse other users of "desperate evasion" when you're not willing to engage with the criticism and new information you have been given. To be clear, the name of this character in official media is "Shepard." FemShep and BroShep are nicknames invented and used by fans for the female and male versions of this character (the player chooses Shepard's gender). FemShep and BroShep are not used in official media. We have plenty of terms related to characters from classic literature e.g. and . Banning any term referencing a fictional entity would mean those would have to go too. This came up during the 13-1 vote, which you apparently haven't read. It's clear above that you have a rigid subjective idea about what a "proper definition" is and now you're at the level of a vandalizing Citations page. This nomination is baseless and a waste of time. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * All professionally published dictionaries have real-entity-related adjectives like Dickensian. Few or none have proper-noun nicknames that refer to the entity rather than merely an aspect of the entity, I would think. One exception that comes to mind was a (Collins?) reference work my family had that claimed to be a combined dictionary and encyclopaedia (my father felt it failed on both counts, heh). Equinox ◑ 10:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is cited, it was cited before the RFV began; it meets FICTION because (AFAICT) it originated outside fiction. I'm not convinced it's dictionary material, many of you above don't think it is, and conversely other people do, but that's an RFD or BP question. At best / worst, if we wanna argue no fan/outside-created terms derived from terms that originated in the fictional world (like BroShep contains part of the character's name Shepard, or e.g. ME is just abbreviating the work's name) should count as being coined fully outside the fiction, that's a BP and WT:V issue that goes way beyond this word. I do think it's weird and inconsistent that fan nicknames for characters (BroShep) and ship names (Lumity, and if attested e.g. *MalNara) are allowed, when characters' proper / in-media names (Luz, Mal, Inara, etc) or placenames (or works' names, e.g. Firefly) reasonably aren't, but again, that's a WT:V issue, the policy allows this. I think the policy makes for odd edge cases, e.g. if a show has fictional Japanese prefectures (-ken) and states (-shu) and characters say "I'm headed to Tokutowaken", we can't have Tokutowaken, but if the only mention of the Oyatowato prefecture/state happens to be in the dialogue "what region is he in now?" "Oyatowato." and it's only fans who write about Oyatowatoken per se (the work never clarifies if it's Oyatowatoken or Oyatowatoshu), would that make that one includable? If many characters are addressed in-show with a -san suffix, but one isn't and it's only fans who apply the suffix, is that name includable where all the others aren't? If a show refers to a multipart device as "the Armageddon Devices" sic but fans often refer to it as the Armageddon Device, does that get an entry? I think our policy could be improved! But again, that's not an RFV issue. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * WT:NSE gives a fair amount of latitude. There's nothing in it that would explicitly preclude fan-coined names for fictional places. But I've long taken something of a conservative approach myself. I think is the only fan-coined term for a fictional place that I've added. I never set out to import everything listed on the TV Tropes article on fan nicknames.
 * I generally only created fannish proper nouns that fit the following rules of thumb:
 * Ship names because this precedent was set long ago by.
 * Entities with no official name in the source work (e.g. the nameless planet in A Song of Ice and Fire).
 * Entities with non-specific or multiple official names (e.g. a player character whose default name varies depending on gender or race selected).
 * Versions of a fictional entity that exist only in fanworks (e.g. or ).
 * Coinages that have been used in academic writing on fandom.
 * Coinages from older fandoms that may thus be considered notable from a historical perspective (e.g. )
 * WordyAndNerdy (talk)


 * Maybe semi-irrelevantly: where you have developed a personal policy that isn't "actual policy", it might be helpful to stick it on your user page. If you want to. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed. AG202 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

FemShep
The citations don't seem to meet the requirements accessible via WT:FICTION. DCDuring (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As above. Survived RfV a year ago. Already robustly attested. "I don't like it" is not a legitimate basis for RfV'ing an already-cited word. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedily kept for the same reasons as in the BroShep RFV + what @WordyAndNerdy has said. AG202 (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No such process as "Speedy Keep". DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you RFV an already-attested term under a policy that is clearly being complied with by any reasoanble interpretation? This isn't even a name from the fictional work - it was coined by fans. Theknightwho (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify: "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense" DCDuring (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Cited; was cited before the RFV began; is not an RFV issue. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Could've avoided these two weeks of unneeded discussion, but meh. AG202 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)