Talk:normal

2005 RfD
Copied from the discussion of manpanion on Requests for deletion:

Protologism? I've never heard of it. Nastily formed blend (my POV). Presumably only applies to male couples. &mdash; Paul G 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard or read it, either. I've added what scant few quotations I can find.  I'm not convinced that it rises above the level of protologism yet.  One of the two quotations indicates that it applies to normal heterosexual relationships.  Uncle G 20:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As opposed to abnormal heterosexual relationships, or abnormal homosexual ones perhaps? ;) This is a use of "normal" I dislike, but then I don't write the dictionary.  Oh, I've just remembered, I do :)  Let me see if that sense is there.  &mdash; Paul G 17:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the second definition at normal it can mean "Usual; ordinary". Considering that the vast majority of relationships are heterosexual, one could consider it "normal" or "usual" without being disparaging. Just a thought. Kevin Rector 02:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree. I think though it can often be used unthinkingly, as in the example I have given.  Perhaps it is also a synonym for "able-bodied", or any other adjective describing a majority as opposed to a minority.  I have heard and seen it used in the sense of "heterosexual".  Perhaps too, as Kevin suggests, this is just a fine distinction of the sense "usual, ordinary" rather than one deserving separate treatment.  I'll copy this discussion to the discussion page.  &mdash; Paul G 09:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

From RFD
A "disambiguation page"? Wrong wiki. This needs to be subst:'d into the proper article. --Connel MacKenzie 06:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm....while I don't think it should be a disambiguation page (nor do I really think it currently is), I almost think it should simply remain the way it is, with a link from normal. Now, I'm not terribly advanced in mathematics, but if these definitions are all legit and not redundant, then it's good to have them.  However, it's just going to fuck the normal page up if we dump them all there.  Atelaes 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it really does need to be merged with normal. I's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it. SemperBlotto 07:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I did that because there are many meanings for normal in math, but casual readers probably don't care to see them all. I was eventually planning on doing similar things for some other words like weak, trivial, simple, possibly irreducible, and so on.  So if this is anti-Wiktionary, I'm glad someone caught it before I did all that work :-)  Of the entries at normal/math, I'd say numbers 1,2,13, and 14 are the most important.. but then, a probabilist might say number 4 trumps them all.. that's why I made that page, so we could get them all without totally wrecking the normal page...  Hmm, you guys know best and I definitely love whatever contribution you all make! :D Language Lover 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it somewhat related to this, please also see Beer_parlour, where a similar problem is discussed. Language Lover 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of casual readers, it'd probably be better to just delete all the math definitions, if people don't want a normal/math page. It's kind of silly to have this many senses in the main article.
 * I'd have to disagree; we should aim to include all attested senses from all disciplines and genres. It may be possible to consolidate some of the mathematical senses, though; I'm not sure. -- Visviva 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Placement of mathematical definitions of "normal"
An alternative to the current placement of mathematical definitions could be in the multi-word nouns derived from "normal", such as normal vector. After all, the meaning does not sit on "normal" but on "normal vector"; it is the class "vector" that specifies what it means for a vector to be "normal". The entry "normal" would quickly get a user to the multi-word noun entries, from Derived terms; a notice to look for more meanings in the multi-word entries could be entered as the last sense of the word "normal". --Daniel Polansky 16:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My original idea was to make the last sense say "see normal/math", which I created and put all those math senses at. People didn't like this idea and all those definitions got dumped in the main entry.  Now I feel like it's silly to have that many definitions there.  I like your idea for making the last sense somehow indicate the senses inn multiword entries.  How exactly would that be phrased?  One problem is that certain parties want entries to be easily parsed by bots.  Language Lover 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the homosexual definition is absolutely ridiculous. The way the word is used in the example is to state that homosexuality is abnormal-- and denegrate the abnormality, not the homosexuality. It's not as if "normal" is used as a gaybashing term. The same could be said to someone of any number of subcultures or someone with an unorthodox appearance. Recommend it be removed. ~Makku

Normal = heterosexual
Can this really be considered a definition? Yes, "normal" could be used as a gay pejorative, but by that logic it could be used to put any group down - black people, short people, disabled people, etc, etc. Why is this particular group of people singled out? Tooironic 11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think normal is used to in conversations about ethnicity and race. It is used in discussions about people with disabilities, emotional problems, learning disabilities, unusual medical conditions. It is also used in discussions about sexual preference. A dictionary describes usage, doesn't recommend it. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sexual preference? Implying that sexual ORIENTATION is a choice? Really? Come on. This is 2010, people. Get with the program. --71.245.115.139 04:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Verification discussion
"(informal, pejorative towards homosexuals) heterosexual". Needs to be cited distinct from the existing senses "usual, ordinary" (because heterosexuality is more frequent and is the traditional Western norm) and "healthy; not sick or ill" (because homosexuality has often been regarded as a disorder). Equinox ◑ 10:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * turns up some interesting uses. this book consistently distinguishes between "normal" and "homosexual" males of genus Barbus (as do other works by that same author); this page and this page also demonstrate such a distinction. When you say that this "[n]eeds to be cited distinct from the existing senses", what do you have in mind? —Ruakh TALK 03:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How is something attributed to person A pejorative to person B? Is "She was the valedictorian of her class." pejorative to those who weren't? This is far outside of what a dictionary should represent. Perhaps it fits in some appendix on pragmatics or discourse analysis. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest we delete the meaning as not distinct from other senses, as Equinox says, or mark it as offensive. - -sche 19:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * rfv-failed. I've replaced the definition by a usage note. Conrad.Irwin 19:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

normal: not mentally ill
I think that's an important meaning that we're only hinting at, and should probably include as common colloquial usage. Which isn't about health, of course, but about using the stigma of mental illness to insult others.

2.211.37.66 13:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the same kind of case shown above on this page, for "heterosexual" - that sense failed and was removed. Equinox ◑ 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To add to entry
To add to entry: an explanation of why this word means "pertaining to teaching teachers how to teach." 173.89.236.187 03:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)