Talk:women ☕

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023
Was tagged with derogatory, but there are a range of non-durably-archived cites in the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I presume the singular, woman ☕, also needs cites, btw. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Believe me that there is no chance in hell you will find this term on anything more durable than toilet paper. But I still think we should keep the two entries (just look at the page views! ) Ioaxxere (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Page views, especially for words like this, should not be indicative as to whether or not the words should be kept (and personally it's a strong negative). AG202 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of the quotations are mentions and thus shouldn't count. 98.170.164.88 18:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed (for the interjection sense), but mentions usually make for much more interesting quotations. I could pull up a million comments of just "women ☕" but it would get a little repetitive. Ioaxxere (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , In Category:English terms by their individual characters, this is the only entry that is spelt with an emoji. The emoji doesn't seem to have a pronunciation. English is a spoken language, so it seems strange to include words in Wiktionary that can't be pronounced. SpanishSnake (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * English is both a spoken and a written language, so I don't see the issue with including words only attested in writing. Also, there are a few English entries with emoji (🐐, 🧢, 🥷) Ioaxxere (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @loaxxere 🐐 is pronounced the same as “GOAT”, 🧢 is pronounced the same as “cap”. It’s unclear if ☕️ is pronounced as “coffee”. If it is not pronounced, I would think it would fall under other emojis like 😀 and 😎. SpanishSnake (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is pronounced but suprasegmentally. See, French “ means either ’daughter’ or ‘whore’ depending on whether you sneer in a certain way when you use it.”
 * Also I am for keeping it. The requirement of durable uses is being applied against the intent of the provision, which was to exclude ghost words, protologisms and chancucks trolling us by new inventions, while this is an organically grown and raised word. As well the meaning of the enacted Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived is that online-only sources may also contribute exclusively towards inclusion of a term and procedurally it may kept if we feel strong about it in a discussion of two weeks. But we don’t succeed, of course, if editors don’t know what they actually want. Fay Freak (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the origin of the term, the coffee emoji is probably pronounced with a slurping or "loud sipping" sound. Quite how we denote this in our entry is another question... This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It has almost been a month since the last comment and this entry still fails RFV as is. There needs to be a vote or something of the like to determine whether or not this entry should stay. I'm personally still opposed without RFV-eligible cites. AG202 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @AG202 If it has failed, delete it and close the discussion. - TheDaveRoss  19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @TheDaveRoss I would, but I'm iffy about the closing procedure on this specific one, and wanted to leave it to at least admin who would be more experienced with this. AG202 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed . Lack of qualifying cites, Twitter is not an automatically-accepted source for RFV, and a vote has not been started. Same goes for . AG202 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A few editors have already expressed their support or at least ambivalence towards this entry. By "a vote has not been started", do you mean a formal vote at Votes? Ioaxxere (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Something similar to what the IP 70... has done on similar entries, having a CFI-mandated discussion/vote for 2 weeks on the RFV page itself, if you so choose. AG202 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

CFI Vote (women ☕)

 * 1) Keep. I agree with  who stated that this RFV goes against the spirit of CFI: this particular coffee cup combination is heavily attested on non-durable sources (i.e social media, and especially on TikTok and Instagram which we never cite). If we scraped the entire Internet for the string "women ☕", I'll ballpark that total attestation would be in the millions, but the general editor population (which skews older) is probably unaware of this. Also, the monthly page view count  (consistently holding around 20k-30k for several months) proves that there is significant interest in this term. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, this video shows what typical use looks like: https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/comments/wc6wtv/women/ Ioaxxere (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Not approve. As I said before, monthly view count is not a barometer of whether or not an entry should be kept, especially for an offensive term. Twitter & Reddit have failed in their quests to be CFI-verifiable sources, and this is the exact type of term and usage that caused them to fail. AG202 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For fairness: pinging everyone else who's participated in this discussion: @This, that and the other, @SpanishSnake, @-sche, @TheDaveRoss. Unfortunately I cannot ping the 98 IP. AG202 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. In general I would prefer a few more cites, but I'm willing to accept this as it is. The term is clearly in wide use. To go back to the principle stated at the very top of WT:CFI, "it's likely that someone would run across [this term] and want to know what it means", specifically if they are browsing certain (rather dark) corners of the Internet. What's more, even if the term had been used in durably-archived sources, it would be next to impossible to search for these uses due to the emoji. I'm not entirely sure what AG202 wants to achieve by deleting this term. This, that and the other (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not trying to achieve anything, but this is the type of term that led Twitter & Reddit to fail as CFI sources, and so, I'm standing on the principle that it shouldn't be on the project. AG202 (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * it's virtually impossible to find interesting cites that aren't mentions⁠—see the video I posted above for what representative usage looks like. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep per Ioaxxere and This, that and the other. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep per Ioaxxere and This, that and the other. The offensiveness of a term shouldn't affect its inclusion. Pretending that such a widely used term doesn't exist would be dishonest on our part. Binarystep (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep per above. This term is offensive to women and also to men, such as myself, who dislike slurping but that's besides the point. We should keep it as it's something people would likely run across. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) I am a little confused what this vote is. The update to the CFI was that sources could be accepted if there was a discussion lasting two weeks, but we have had that discussion for Reddit and Twitter and the result was not to accept them. I don't disagree that, in this case, it is probably pretty widely used in ephemeral social media, but I would prefer that the policy be addressed and that we don't end up having votes on every term which comes along which is not attestable via the CFI. This seems like it is trying to run an end-around of the policy which was very recently established. -  TheDaveRoss  16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion for Reddit and Twitter was about accepting them for citing anything across the whole site, while this vote deals with a particular term. The relevant clause is "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks" Ioaxxere (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We had the discussion and vote concerning those sources, they failed. It isn't practical to have an additional two week re-litigation of failed sources every time those are the only evidence of usage available. - TheDaveRoss  16:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The result was "no consensus", not an outright ban on Reddit and Twitter as sources. A vote ending in a tie (with a slight majority supporting online citations, I might add) isn't enough to justify overturning a previous vote and presumably deleting entries like and  that were initially allowed on an individual basis. It isn't beneficial for us to ban nearly all slang terms coined after 2005 simply because they're not citable in legacy media. Binarystep (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I took my leave in October, Twitter-the-company has been handed over to new management and driven into the ground with surprising swiftness, and yet this site is predictably still caught up in its never-ending cycle of bureaucratic stonewalling on this issue. The entry is literally the oldest nomination on this page because no one wants to close it and set a precedent. Either that CFI is in dire need of being brought into the 21st century, or that it's fine to toss out an entry with 12 years of cites on an arbitrary pretense. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The current precedent seems to be to hold individual votes on entries that don't meet the standard CFI criteria (essentially the same process as RFD). Since I have been trying to clean out RFVE, I've started a vote on above that you might be interested in joining. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not the precedent, the precedent is to delete things which have failed to meet CFI, see the thousands of failed CFIs. Adding additional steps to the process seems like it is intended to make it easier to subvert the current policy because you don't like it. - TheDaveRoss  15:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheDaveRoss CFI includes a discussion on whether there is consensus to accept non-durable citations, though. We had a vote on this. Theknightwho (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho It does, and we had that discussion concerning the sources included in this entry, and we did not vote to accept them. I don't think we ought to have the same vote over and over again, that reeks of circumventing policy by making the discussions on it more and more obscure. - TheDaveRoss  22:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheDaveRoss Where did we decide that we can never use Twitter in cites? We decided that it can't be automatically accepted, but that isn't the same thing. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Twitter can be used for cites, they are just not accepted as far as CFI is concerned. We decided that when we voted and it was not accepted. - TheDaveRoss  15:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The vote was to either always allow or always forbid Twitter for CFI-compliant citations. The verdict was no consensus (with a slight lean in favor of always allowing Twitter). How does that translate into "Twitter isn't allowed ever"? "No consensus" means "no change", not "option 2 wins". Binarystep (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like rules lawyering to me. Just make a better policy already so we can stop having this dumb debate. - TheDaveRoss  14:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work toward clearing up the backlog. However, I'm afraid to say that "look, the pointless, time-squandering obstructionism is a formalized process now!" is not a very convincing sales pitch. I tried working within the CFI framework for years while pressing for change, only to be met with endless roadblocks from people set on things never changing. I'm done dancing to that fiddle. I'm done jumping over unnecessary hurdles. I can't change the system, and I'm tired of fighting it, so the only solution I can see is to refuse to be a part of the system. Every now and then the list of shiny new words on my desk grows long enough to tempt me back here. But this is the time I tell myself "no." Revert vandalism, correct a couple of typos, drop a couple of comments. But absolutely no getting drawn back into active participation. I'm sorry. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheDaveRoss This is how I feel as well, especially with the more "controversial" discussion towards the bottom about Transgender derogatory slang. Especially since the WT:DEROGATORY rules weren't followed or enforced to begin with, it really seems like the policy is being circumvented. AG202 (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed (5-1) Ioaxxere (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)