Template talk:R:Urban

RFDO discussion: July–October 2015

 * Previous discussion: User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym

Urban dictionary isn't a reliable resource; anyone can edit it, and (as was discussed in a news article about it a while ago) the principle criteria by which users admit to upvoting definitions is not whether they are accurate but whether they are funny. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It provides a window into slang usage that cannot be achieved otherwise. It is not a substitute for attestation, of course. Some of the definitions are good and some of those rise to the top by user vote. Judgment is required in the deployment of the template, but that's true of most content: definitions, usage examples, lists of synonyms, derived and related terms, templates, lists of cognates, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but Urban dictionary is, I believe, user-editable like a wiki. Reference links would only make sense if we can link to a specific revision. Otherwise, the content that has been referenced might well have disappeared in the meantime. So if permalinks are not available, then delete. —CodeCat 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Like a wiki" is misleading. Anyone can add a new definition of a word (which becomes its own little packet, shown under the headword, with all the others, and pushed up or down by user votes &mdash; which of course aren't based on lexico merit but on general popularity or trolling); it's not wiki-like in the real sense, i.e. one person can edit and improve another person's writing. Equinox ◑ 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, largely per -sche. The above-linked previous discussion features User:JohnC5, User:I'm so meta even this acronym, User:SemperBlotto, User:Dixtosa, and User:DCDuring. AFAIK, Equinox is correct that Urban dictionary posts are not edited by other users or proposed for deletion; they are upvoted and downvoted, with zero use of lexicographical evidence. For the record, the template has currently 0 entries using it in the mainspace (was it depopulated?), and was created on 3 July 2013‎. From what I have seen, Urban dictionary is so full of low-grade content that it is not even worthwhile as an external link AKA "where else would you send me to look at?". Mining Urban dictionary for attestable content is fine (rephrasing needed!), but once we succeed in adding attested content based on UD, we become higher authority than UD via our attesting quotations, and our linking to UD gets superfluous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; not a good source for understanding slang usage. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. As previously stated, I would be fine with this template's deletion as long as it was accompanied by a disallowance of UD as a source. This template should be removed only if we agree that UD should not be cited. Alternatively it could be used for something else than citation (example usage, perhaps?), but it would need to be explicitly removed from the  namespace. — JohnC5 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @John: I don't understand what you mean by disallowing UD as a source. For English, we are not using sources as references to support our definitions. Instead, we require attesting quotations showing terms in use, as per WT:ATTEST and long-term practice. I don't see how an item from UD could be used for attestation given most of it would be mention, not use, in accordance with the current policy and practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently, we have two clear votes in favour of keeping and two in favour of deleting (three, if we count the nominator). I am not clear on the votes of the following editors involved in the discussions, so I'm pinging them in hopes that they'll make their positions known: —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dan Polansky and with JohnC5's prerequisite that UD be disallowed as a source. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Re counting the nominator: when I've closed RFDs, I've counted the nominator's position along with the other commenters' positions, since they are after all one of the people saying they think the item is unsuitable. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, funny but still delete. See also Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)