Talk:bossman

RFC discussion: September 2013–October 2019
While I (the creator of the page) did not post the rfc that is currently on the page, I have to agree that the page could do with a bit of touch-up.

I will state this, however: the definition, usage notes and synonyms are 100% correct. Keep that in mind if you change the wording on the page. It is vital to realise that this is NOT a familial term, but neither is it derogatory or rude. It's... sort of in the same category as "stranger" in the sense of "Where go ye, stranger?" Tharthan (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Tharthan (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SemperBlotto really should've listed this after tagging it. We try and avoid things like "used to address" because it doesn't indicate a noun, so defining it as "a man" or "a person" is better. You mean familiar not familial; familial means relating to family where familiar means colloquial (roughly). It's also written from quite a first-person perspective, as if you're saying how you use the term i.e. your opinion rather than a dictionary definition, that has to address how everyone uses the term. I'd contribute more if I could. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually meant neither "familiar" nor "familial." I actually meant "cordial." I was tired, my apologies. And it's not as much written from a first-person perspective as it is written from the perspective of someone who wants to make sure the term isn't confused with other similar terms. The whole reason that I have taken this precaution is because of the term's odd usage history. It's all over the place. Tharthan (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The original uasge (going back to 1934 according to the OED) of boss-man was just a synonym of boss (etymology 3), so I think we should have that sense first, with your modern colloquial usage second. Wouldn't "a term of address" be clearer than "vocative"?    D b f  i  r  s   07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that such is just a similar coinage. "Bossman" is not "boss-man." Anybody can coin "[title] + man" as a familial use of said term. Bossman, however, is not synonymous with "boss" nor a term of endearment. This is somewhat consistent with the other use of "boss"; as a sarcastic term use when frustrated. Thus, they are indeed coined by the same two words, but not at the same time nor with the same intent. In addition, I've never seen "bossman" confused with "boss-man" in my entire life; neither in spelling nor in speech. Tharthan (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED considers the two to be the same word.   D b f  i  r  s   08:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which edition of Oxford are you referring to? I can find it in neither the twelfth edition nor the eighth edition. Tharthan (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the current (on-line with subscription) edition of the OED, not a compact version, but it doesn't have your exact interpretation.   D b f  i  r  s   20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

BUMP Tharthan (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to be resolved; Equinox had a go at it a couple of months ago and removed the cleanup template. It does look fine now, I think we can close this. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)