Talk:Turing word

I'd noticed this term being used on comments (on blogsites, slashdot, etc), didn't get the definition from context, so came here looking. Not here, not on other user-gen dictionaries, and yet it was being used without explanation, as if already well known. Does anyone know the origin? For example, is it the actual name of the CAPTCHA test used by one specific website?

Also, the first three definitions are pretty much a rephrasing of the same thing. Is that reasonable, or redundant. -- 203.171.196.116 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. The origin is presumably what you put for an etymology: Turing test: + word:. I merged some of your senses. If the two remaining senses are the same, i.e. it only refers to a Web CAPTCHA and not (generally speaking) any mechanism for telling human from computer, then we should drop sense 2 as well. I've also RFVed it, because I suspect it might be too new a coinage to meet our criteria at WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to put the original Def.4 back. Or speedy-del the lot. Since that's the only context I've seen the phrase used. Ie, when commenters are discussing something, then notice that their CAPTCHA word relates to the topic and addendum their posts, "Turing word: Freedom. Yeah right, no freedom under this administration!" Moreso, it seems to be a game, to use the word in a sentence relevant to the topic. And yet, as I said above, it is never explained, as if everyone else just knows the term/game. It seemed suspiciously mature usage. {Template:UserShrugs} Wiser heads and all that -- 203.171.196.116 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you will have trouble citing that bloggy usage per WT:CFI, since we don't use Weblogs as sources. To me, it looks no different from an utterance like (say) "I bought some eggs. Price: two dollars" (i.e. the price was two dollars; the Turing word was &lt;whatever&gt;). Being quoted as a game doesn't really give it a distinct dictionary sense &mdash; though Wikipedia might want to document the "game" as encyclopaedic content. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Equinox ◑ 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google gets 139 hits for this, but I'd have to look quite hard to get three "usable" ones. It's not sum of parts if it does exist (IMO). So, good luck! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)