Talk:jogger

RFV discussion: August–September 2022
"A black person". — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Side note, I rephrased the ety. - -sche (discuss) 01:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cited. Binarystep (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet cited, there's only 1 cite that's from Usenet, the others would have to be voted upon. (Also seeing as this is a new word with a 2020 cite on Usenet, all the folks who told me that Usenet is only being used to cite older words can reevaluate that position). AG202 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Passed: I now count seven qualifying quotations which are not mentions. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sgconlaw Per the changes to WT:CFI, this entry must be agreed upon in a discussion since the citations are not durably archived (nor are Twitter or Reddit accepted universally as a source). I'm personally very wary of an entry like this being created without much expanded use. AG202 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Define "expanded use". This term is one of the most common slurs used on social media sites, especially ones where the N-word is blocked by moderation filters. Pretending it doesn't exist simply because it isn't used in legacy media (due to it being a 4chan-created slur referencing a murder from 2020) would be disingenuous on our part. Ignoring every offensive term coined after the death of Usenet isn't beneficial for us as a dictionary. Binarystep (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've created a discussion at "Beer parlour/2022/September". Please discuss there. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's one thing I'm concerned about here. If this vote fails, will our CFI stay the same (i.e. allowing individual terms to be cited with online sources on a case-by-case basis), or will our policy revert to its original state of only allowing physical media and Usenet? I don't want our coverage being kicked back to 2005 if this proposal doesn't pass. Binarystep (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * mmm, I'm not sure what you mean. The previous vote ("Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived") introduced the following sentence: "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks." If editors feel that, say, Reddit is an online-only source that cannot contribute towards attestation requirements, I don't see why this would result in only allowing physical media and Usenet. Other online-only resources would have to be similarly discussed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If Reddit and/or Twitter were wholly banned by your proposal's outcome, our online coverage would become vastly more limited than it is now. Even if other websites were still citable, we'd end up losing some of our biggest potential resources. Binarystep (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * that's not for me to decide, but the consensus of editors taking part in the discussion. If there's a consensus that, say, Reddit isn't a permitted online-only resource, then so be it. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)