Talk:Jar'Edo Wens

Let's see if this can last 10 years on Wiktionary too c: jk but seriously this is an attestable entry. Names of gods have been added to Wikt before so why not add an attested hoaxical one too? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, but it lasted almost 4. So you get 3 out of 10 points for that. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August–November 2017
All the cites I can find for this are mentions. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the 2015 quote durably archived? I can't tell if it was published in the print version of The Washington Post or only online. Also, the PhD thesis quote looks like a mention, and the other 2016 quote seems kind of mention-y too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unstriking. 2012 is a mention, 2015 1 is a mention, no one has offered any evidence that 2015 2 is durably archived, 2016 1 still seems mention-y, and 2016 2 is a mention. Please don't close a discussion as "RFV-passed" when these major issues with the quotations have not been addressed. Also, Kiwima, when possible it would really be helpful if you could provide links to the sources of quotes—this makes them much easier for other editors to verify. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you entirely about 2012, 2015: 1, and 2016:2 being mentions. They are not talking about a hypothetical word that someone may have used as the name of a deity, they are talking about a name that was used in an actual hoax that occurred. You need to explain why you consider these mentions if you want to convince me. I don't understand your objection to the Washington Post quote - while I have not gone to the library to check back print copies of the Washington Post, most papers print MORE in the paper version than the online version, not less. Kiwima (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some newspapers have online-only content, such as the New York Times and The Guardian. I don't know if the Washington Post is one of them, but if you're confident the article appeared in the print version, I'll trust your judgment.
 * 2012, 2015:1, and 2016:2 are mentions because they just define the word, without using it to convey meaning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By that criterion, the only one that looks like a mention to me is the 2012 quote. The others are all using the name to talk about the hoax. Kiwima (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2015:1 and 2016:2 talk about the hoax and mention the term, but they don't actually use the term to talk about the hoax. They just talk about the hoax and then mention the name. In contrast, the Washington Post quote is using the term to talk about the hoax, in the phrase "By the time editors found Jar’Edo Wens". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is what the use vs. mention distinction is about. Especially when you are talking about a Proper Noun. That looks to me like a minor difference in rhetorical style. The Washington Post article could just as easily said "By the time editors found the fictitious deity" and they would still have been using the term in the same way, just relying on a previous introduction. Kiwima (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I think 2012, 2015:1, and 2016:2 are straightforward mentions, and WT:CFI certainly does not make an exception for proper nouns (nor do I see any reason why it should). Something that is a minor difference in rhetorical style to an ordinary reader can be an essential difference to a lexicographer. I've added a template to solicit other editors' opinions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On both 2015 quotes, the headline follows your definition of use rather than mention even if the text of the first does not. Does that give us both 2015 quotes and the first 2016? Kiwima (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the headlines for both 2015 quotes look like uses; thanks for pointing that out. Is 2015:1 durably archived? There's no link given, and after a Google search the only source I see is this, which does not look durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one I am sure is durably archived, because that happens to be my local paper (which takes a lot of its content from stuff, because they don't have much budget for writers-- it's kind of a rag, oh well)! Kiwima (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I still think 2016:1 is borderline, but I can live with it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just noticed how short this page has gotten—kudos to you, Kiwima, for closing and archiving so many discussions! —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–April 2021
Err, this was a hoax entry on Wikipedia, and all the quotations on the page are mentions, despite what the RFV debate on the talk page may say. So I have no choice but to call PseudoSkull's bluff. Alexfromiowa (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The mighty Ĵar’Edo Wenṣ will smite you for your arrogance. --Lambiam
 * Keep, if attested. Possibly label it as rare or something. Move to WT:RFV, if the existence is questioned. named *, called * sound like mentionings, "*" could indicate a mentioning as well... --幽霊四 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This doesn't really come across as dictionary material to me. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur that this really doesn't look like dictionary material.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; Dentonius 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm curious -- why "keep"? What value do you see in having this entry?  And what about this makes it a lexical item that would belong in a dictionary?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Surjection. Ultimateria (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: First of all, we shouldn't delete entries just because they seem like a weird thing to have as a dictionary entry. We have entries like Twitler, Goracle, pedosaur, Poochie-fication, esquilax, Arianator, Belieberism, conperson, aatheist, Aspieness, Crohnie, /b/tard, lulzfag, Caturday, Schmucksville, chocogasm, Pippi Longstocking, carebear, ghost piece, FemShep, Eeveelution, Torygraph, purrfect, Boraga, Ceqli, wonderfool, and Juventus, none of which you'd ever find in a conventional paper dictionary. That being said, I'm more concerned about the use/mention criterion, which actually is a Wiktionary policy. The 2012 cite from Usenet is clearly a use, the April 2015 article is arguably a use, and the other three cites seem like mentions. Khemehekis (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is not that this is "a weird thing to have as a dictionary entry". My concern is that I see no evidence of this used as a word, rather than a nonce name, and our entry currently is basically just a Wikipedia stub, describing the thing itself.
 * By contrast, the citations at Jigglypuff show that the term is lexicalized, used to talk about more than just the thing itself. "Jigglypuff thighs", for instance.
 * As such, I don't see Jar'Edo Wens as dictionary material -- this does not appear to be a lexical item that would belong in a dictionary.
 * If we can discover evidence of this being used more broadly, perhaps in usage like "he totally Jar'Edo Wensed them with that bogus story", then that would demonstrate lexicalization and provide grounds for a Wiktionary entry. But as it is, this seems more something for Wikipedia than Wiktionary.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thing that just came into my mind: Do you see this more as a modern fictional character (which would have to show metaphorical use to meet WT:FICTION) rather than a traditional mythological character (those pretty much all get in)? I hadn't thought of it that way, but that might be the case? Since Jar'Edo Wens is not genuine ancient mythology, but a hoax invented by a Westerner in the twenty-first century, perhaps WT:FICTION, as it deals with character and place names in fiction, should be applied to it. Khemehekis (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't consciously considered it that way, but yes, I realize now that was also part of my underlying reaction to this entry -- this is a fiction, albeit not a manga or novel or film or television show. Thank you for elucidating that point.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Khemehekis (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete. This does not appear to be of any lexical value. A dictionary should provide definitions of terms people might come across in text and want defined. However, the content offered here is not really explaining meaning. Rather, it primarily saying what the origin of the term is. bd2412 T 00:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, maybe one or two of the quotations involve uses, but the majority of them are indeed just mentions. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's too late for me to say anything now, but I'm disappointed that both I and, an individual who defended this entry in the RFV, were never pinged. I'm not going to call for a reopening of the discussion though, since I kind of agree honestly with the proposition that this entry is useless to a dictionary. The argument that WT:FICTION applies is honestly a good point. I would have voted delete here if I came over in time, but it was still an interesting and funny entry while it lasted. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January 2022
A fictitious deity, see. Pinging who was also not pinged for the last RFD!

It is used without the context of even being a hoax (although only in lists), before it was ever determined to be a hoax. They were all lists, sure, but lists count as uses, however boring they may be. 1. A book on atheism unwittingly includes it (2012). 2. An unrelated but similar list in alt.tv.american-idol (2009). 3. Another unrelated but similar list in alt.religion.christianity (2008).

WT:FICTION seems to agree with me that if a term referring to a mythological creature is referred to in separate contexts by separate authors, it can have an entry regardless of being fictitious even as a mythological creature. Since the hoax fooled people in three separate durably archived instances, this in my mind is enough for it to be included as a dictionary entry. Facts over feelings. I wish for this discussion to focus on the evidence, not some emotional bias against entries like this.

(By the way, I think someone ought to go through these lists and mass-create deity entries for everything else there as well. Maybe we can find another hoax!) PseudoSkull (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think lists count, dictionary-only words get deleted. General Vicinity (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lists are not dictionaries. They are not defining what the words mean, but listing the deities in the context of a certain supposition about each one. We have also considered surnames cited in RFV due to appearing in similar lists IIRC. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lists are not dictionaries, but they're still full of nothing but mentions. In the atheism book, especially, they aren't conveying meaning, they're simply there to be be looked at, like someone showing off their marble collection. We're supposed to be impressed by the sheer number of items in them, not to have any information imparted to us about any specific one. Also, many of our deleted dictionary-only entries have appeared in lists- especially the phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slightly relatedly: I've been wondering where we draw the line regarding specific single proper-noun entities that are really encyclopaedia material. I mean at least is a single word with an interesting etymology, but ""? Equinox ◑ 12:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A matter for a different RFD, but in my perspective, there could be lots of rapists, even serial rapists, in Simi Valley which is a pretty large area. But "the Simi Valley Rapist" refers to that one suspect in works talking about criminology. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, but that's still encyclopaedia material. There are tons of s and suchlike names. Equinox ◑ 13:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (replying to Equinox) Nicknames for public figures commonly used in both the media and casual conversation seem to fall under the CFI umbrella. There's an argument for treating them as lexical units since they sometimes spawn independent coinages (as begat ). But I understand that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. It this particular case, it might be easier to precisely specify what we don't want, rather than attempt to vaguely divine what we do. In other words, to specifically prescribe the inclusion of generic "Springfield Stabber"-type criminal nicknames, unless they attain idiomatic usage like . WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. I'd argue those kinds of lists are not uses but mentions. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I reiterate what I wrote in my deletion vote that it's not really dictionary material to me either way, so I still wouldn't support restoring it if they were uses. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. Meh. Basically the name of a one-time practical joke. I would consider this a term that would need to meet WT:FICTION to be included, and how is it going to do that when uses by nature are self-referential? bd2412 T 00:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Why would you make a dictionary entry out of this? And what about ? – Jberkel 01:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Kept deleted. I'm snowballing this one. Br00pVain (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * reverted. You do not have the experience on this site to be closing discussions, much less speedy closing them; we do not close discussions that have only been open for three days and change. bd2412 T 03:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lame. How much more experience do I need? I've been here 17 damn years...Br00pVain (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you should have experience enough to know that we do not close discussions that have only been open for three days. bd2412 T 18:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm invoking the this is complete bullshit rule... Br00pVain (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can invoke that rule in another week or so. bd2412 T 19:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Kept deleted. Invoking the this absolute complete horsecrap rule, which is stronger than the complete bullshit rule. Br00pVain (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)