Talk:fat bastard

RFV discussion: November 2011
I think it should be included but another user does not so I will leave it here for consensus.Lucifer 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep since it is a set phrase inspired by the Austin Powers series, and can also mean "a large amount" something that is not, a meaning cited in the entry. And since CFI says something is "“idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." "fat bastard" means abundant, & that's not easily obtained from the sum of parts.Lucifer 21:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete oops, this is RFV, not RFD. But he has failed to show anything more than sum of parts. Note he's recreated this after I speedied it twice. Equinox ◑ 22:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I tried to talk to you about it and it does meet the idiomatic inclusion criteria and without the sources and the entry there's no way to show that here, I tried to talk to you about it.Lucifer 22:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there citations at Citations:fat bastard that show a meaning that is not easily interpreted as fat: + bastard:? We may well be missing a sense for the use of fat in invective. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... there's big fat (apparently under RFD discussion), as in the film title My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Same deal here, except this one is also an interjection but it can be used as a prefix and is also a noun, so much use seems to denote a special case here.Lucifer 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an intj, any more than shouting "idiot!" or "pervert!" makes them an intj. An intj is something like ouch:. And there is no way that fat bastard is a prefix. Honestly without wanting to sound smug and rude I wish you'd study some basic linguistics before you make such bold statements. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't nice, your being ridiculous.Lucifer 01:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking perfect sense, and any linguist would agree that "idiot" and "fat bastard" are not intjs. Are you willing to learn or are you going to keep creating crap and get blocked regularly? Equinox [User_talk:Equinox|◑]] 01:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These are indeed very basic aspects of dictionary work. We are attempting to compete with and surpass the other on-line dictionaries, not just in quantity, but in quality. At the very least we should not be inferior to them in reflecting the most basic facts of usage. There are wonderful sources of information available in print and on-line eg, Google NGram viewer, OneLook.com, COCA, BNC) that enable rank amateurs to become moderately knowledgeable linguists and effective amateur lexicographers. The standard for our work is high. Accurate and useful definitions, citations, etymology, and translations should be accompanied by grammatical information that is correct and useful for those capable of benefiting from it.
 * Simply advocating a supposed "missing" entry is not a valuable contribution if the advocate:
 * doesn't understand the rationales for including or excluding entries and
 * makes it difficult to attract support from others by making very basic mistakes and then failing to correct them and learn from them.
 * There are numerous shortcomings to our entries, including the absence of modern senses of such basic words as "fat" and "big" in "fat N", "big N", and "big fat N", where N is some noun with a pejorative sense. It is difficult to produce useful definitions of these senses. A start is to have some citations of the usage that clearly distinguish a new sense from older senses. Such citations are really valuable and can provide some opportunity to learn how language evolves. DCDuring TALK 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)