Talk:bool

A poor choice of quotation
@Ioaxxere, you have seen fit to reverse my edit, in which I deleted the following quotation:

"I'm drunk as fuck, booling with a couple racks on me (Freebandz) / All black Hellcat, Doja Cat mad at me (Boom)".

I opined that it was unnecessary, unclear, unhelpful, and profane. You claimed that it was clear and hardly profane.

I call on you to answer the following questions in a manner that befits one who edits Wiktionary for fun.


 * 1) To whom is the meaning of this quotation clear? Is it clear to a general audience, or only to people who frequently listen to rap music?
 * 2) Do you deny that, according to the encyclopedia we are currently editing, the phrase "as fuck" is vulgar?
 * 3) Is it really necessary to have this quotation here, when there are already four others, none of which are likely to offend or confuse?
 * 4) What exactly does this quotation contribute to the entry, anyhow? How does it help readers to understand the usage of the word "bool"?

I sincerely cannot think of a single reason why this quotation deserves to remain. Please, help me to understand your perspective. Multiple Mooses (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what a "manner that befits one who edits Wiktionary for fun" is, but I'll bite.
 * The meaning of the lines in the song is pretty clear to me. Maybe the part you're getting caught up in is, which is slang for $1000. So the line is equivalent to "I'm very drunk, I'm relaxing, and I have a lot of money".
 * may be inappropriate in a formal setting, but Wiktionary readers aren't children who need to be protected from PG language. I do support removing quotations that are extremely offensive and hateful, but this isn't one.
 * No, it's not "necessary" for anything, but it is a benefit.
 * The quotation is beneficial because it shows an example of usage, and more examples are better.
 * My question to you is whether you have some kind of goal of removing all profanity from Wiktionary.
 * Ioaxxere (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding.
 * Firstly, by "in a manner that befits one who edits Wiktionary for fun", I only meant "in a spirit of academic/intellectual honesty". You'll have to forgive my defective sense of humour.
 * Secondly, I appreciate your clarification of the meaning of the lyric, as I did not know that "rack" meant $1000. I still don't know what "(Freebandz)" is supposed to mean, and I don't think that including a "(Boom)" sound effect at the end adds anything of value. In fact, I'm not sure the second half of the quotation is relevant. Perhaps we could agree to shorten the quotation to:
 * I'm drunk as fuck, booling with a couple racks on me [...]
 * ? Thirdly, no, I do not support the removal of all profanity from Wiktionary. I am only for the limiting of profanity to discussions of profanity. Perhaps you're right that Wiktionary readers are not children (though I was definitely the type of child to browse Wiktionary), but there are still plenty of adults who would prefer not to stumble upon fuck while reading a page devoted to a word that is not considered vulgar. That is what I am trying to get across: that readers should have the ability to avoid obscenities on the site if they so choose. Do you disagree with that? Multiple Mooses (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea in theory, although it has been rejected by Wikipedia (see w:WP:Perennial proposals). And Wikipedia prominently features blatantly NSFW images which are definitely more objectionable than some bad words. IMO, rooting out every quotation with and  seems like far more trouble than it's worth (I even once had a teacher get mad at ). Ioaxxere (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand now, and I agree that removing this quotation contributes little to what is, as you have made clear, a much larger situation, including not only words and phrases but also images. Accordingly, I will refrain from making this type of edit in future. I thank you for being patient with a very new and overzealous editor. Multiple Mooses (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Thirdly, no, I do not support the removal of all profanity from Wiktionary. I am only for the limiting of profanity to discussions of profanity. Perhaps you're right that Wiktionary readers are not children (though I was definitely the type of child to browse Wiktionary), but there are still plenty of adults who would prefer not to stumble upon fuck while reading a page devoted to a word that is not considered vulgar. That is what I am trying to get across: that readers should have the ability to avoid obscenities on the site if they so choose. Do you disagree with that? Multiple Mooses (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea in theory, although it has been rejected by Wikipedia (see w:WP:Perennial proposals). And Wikipedia prominently features blatantly NSFW images which are definitely more objectionable than some bad words. IMO, rooting out every quotation with and  seems like far more trouble than it's worth (I even once had a teacher get mad at ). Ioaxxere (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand now, and I agree that removing this quotation contributes little to what is, as you have made clear, a much larger situation, including not only words and phrases but also images. Accordingly, I will refrain from making this type of edit in future. I thank you for being patient with a very new and overzealous editor. Multiple Mooses (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand now, and I agree that removing this quotation contributes little to what is, as you have made clear, a much larger situation, including not only words and phrases but also images. Accordingly, I will refrain from making this type of edit in future. I thank you for being patient with a very new and overzealous editor. Multiple Mooses (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)