Talk:self-rape

RFV discussion: November–December 2017
Ƿidsiþ 09:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I can find evidence for the corresponding noun, but not a verb. In fact, I can find evidence for several noun senses, which I have added and cited. Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We have an overlap problem again (as at blotch). For example, sense 5 cite 1 (Washingtonian 1975) could equally go under sense 8. Equinox ◑ 00:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Way too many senses here. Ƿidsiþ 05:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(Previously removed discussion below. Added back under the appropriate header.) — justin(r)leung { (t...) 05:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(Hi! I, Equinox, moved this here because the nominator, Flyer22 Reborn, agrees that it should have been here and not at RFD. My comment: there are a lot of senses there, and most/all of them have already been cited, so it's still a bit hard to know what we're being asked to do here.) Equinox ◑ 03:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a serious term. Used jokingly to refer to masturbation. Term rages on due to urban legend. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is the wrong venue because that entry is already full of very many citations. Is there an RFV/RFD already? What am I missing? Equinox ◑ 02:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Like the entry immediately above this one, User:Zzliel also created this entry. Looking at the editor's contributions, this looked like something else that should be deleted. Still does. As you may have guessed, if the Welcome template you placed on my talk page is any indication, I'm not too familiar with editing Wiktionary. So if this is not the correct place to discuss deletion of this entry, perhaps you can point me to the better or best place? Or list it for me? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as the citations are correct and sufficient for WT:CFI (durably archived, usages and not mentionings, etc.), there's no proper reason to delete it. -84.161.6.246 04:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. It is not an actual term. What dictionaries, other than Urban Dictionary, actually include and define this term? This slang aspect can be easily mentioned on the Masturbation page. Wiktionary should not be used to popularize fake terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * When the question is "who defines this; can we find this defined in this way" then the venue is WT:RFV and not WT:RFD. Can we move it? Equinox ◑ 03:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please move it for me. As mentioned, I'm a newbie here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: As indicated above, this was moved by Equinox. But it still seems that this should be deleted. I'm not really asking who defines it this way. It is more of an argument because I don't see that this is a real term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that there is also already a section on this matter above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Got an explanation at Equinox's talk page. Apparently, any non-existent word is allowed here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * on that talk page you asked "Who defines words if not grammar scholars and dictionaries?" The answer is that native speakers define words by using them. It's our job to observe how words are actually used and then define them accordingly. A dictionary definition has to follow usage, not the other way round. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mahāgaja, a dictionary definition following usage based on what reliable sources state is what I was concerned about. I noted above that I don't see that this is a real word, and that it certainly is nowhere close to common. But I got schooled on how things work here. Chalk up my deletion arguments to a newbie mistake. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not Wikipedia; we're not concerned with "reliable sources" as far as definitions are concerned (though we are concerned with them for etymologies). If a term is used in multiple durably archived sources, it's a "real word" as far as we're concerned; and it doesn't have to be common (we have the label en for such cases). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Mahāgaja, like I stated, I've already been schooled on the matter. Also, an editor also pointed me to WT:Wiktionary for Wikipedians. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)