Wikipedia

Talk:Bloke (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 10 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Learn more about this page

Jonathon Davis?

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is Jonathon Davis' inclusion in this page really encyclopaedic? And where the hell does "HIV" come from? I very much doubt it's really his nickname... Nova Prime 15:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've removed this, seems stupid to me... Also, wtf is with the picture? EAi 18:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think someone added him in as a joke. There's not really any need to remove the picture since it does illustrate 'a bloke', but I'm sure it could be replaced with a better one. - Nova Prime 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Decline in usage?

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
During the 1950s the word bloke was used extensively - dude being unheard of and guy pertaining to Guy Fawkes only - by adults while "chap" was used by schoolboys. It fell gradually out of use in the early sixties and was not really replaced by anything else.

I have deleted the second sentence from this paragraph, as I would regard 'bloke' (and 'chap') as both remaining in common frequent usage. DWaterson 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Certainly in South Australia bloke is used in every day language. Dude seems only to be used instead of mate. eg. Hey dude what are you doing? Chap seems to have almost entirely disappeared, it seems to be more of an affection eg. G'day chaps.. Guy is used interchangeably with bloke eg. I met a guy at the pub. I met a bloke at the pub etc. Ozdaren 12:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

«Tête carrée» derived from bloke

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The also used moniker, «Tête carrée» (“square head”) is derived from bloke.

I don't understand: how do you get to tête carrée from bloke? Marnanel 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe from the word bloc?

Redundancy

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Previously this article only said that the term blokey, to mean a man with exagerated stereotypical masculine behaviour, mannerisms, pursuits, was authentically Australasian and restricted to Aust and NZ. Now a more general discussion of the very same thing is also in the top section of article, with reference to UK tv series Men Behaving Badly. This seems like a redundancy to have the two sections that say similar things. Also does this mean the blokey usage is also in the UK, so not usique to Aust/NZ? Asa01 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oooops. This fist section usesblokish, the second, blokey. Maybe the Men Bahaving Badly bit and the blokey bit can be put in a new section together. They are very similar concepts. Asa01 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone watching this art?

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recent edits look as though they might need reverting - but which edit is the "right one" - spurious and or fake etymology is not my expertise! SatuSuro 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cab Calloway

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Used 'bloke' in the lyrics of Minnie the Moocher (1932).

She messed around with a bloke named smokie

Is any authentic use of 'bloke' in the US reflected in this lyric or would it simply be emulation by the artist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.32.189 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Expand, merge or redirect

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning, possible origins and usage of a regional slang expression. While there is some interesting content here, I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins. The "other uses" lines belong on the disambiguation page.

Options to fix the page here include:

  1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
  2. Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
  3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).
  4. Move the disambiguation page to this title and clearly point the lexical content to the Wiktionary page.

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 4 for now. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately this page now seems to be somewhere between an article and a dab page. If the meaning and origins of the word as a slang term is inappropriate for Wikipedia (as I suspect it is) then it should be merged into the Wiktionary article for bloke, and this should be made into a genuine disambiguation page. As such, I have tagged it with {{TWCleanup2}} (the most appropriate template I could find), even though information may still need to be taken from from here to Wiktionary. leevclarke (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bloke is broke.

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Summary: Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. The "oppose a full article" arguments are more strongly articulated, but listing Bloke (word) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) to allow for more detailed arguments from Green Cardamom.

Closing rationale: Green Cardamom (talk · contribs), PamD (talk · contribs), and George Ho (talk · contribs) support a full article about bloke. Rossami (talk · contribs), JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs), and Snow Rise (talk · contribs) oppose a full article on the basis of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cnilep (talk · contribs) has not offered an opinion for either side.

Most of the commentary in this RfC was from Rossami, Snow Rise, and Green Cardamom. The oppose arguments by Rossami and Snow Rise are persuasively advanced: Their arguments are rooted in the position that the article is mostly a lexical entry and are backed by specific examples from the article. Green Cardamom argues that the "Influences in Australian culture" section addresses these concerns. Green Cardamom has not advanced more specific arguments because he intends to "sav[e] [them] for the AfD".

In April 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (ten participants) was closed as keep. In April 2008, the discussion at Talk:Bloke#Expand, merge or redirect (involving two users: Rossami (talk · contribs) and Leevclarke (talk · contribs)) resulted in a transwiki to Wiktionary. The transwiki was unopposed so was enacted. However, it is not binding because a two-user discussion cannot irrevocably overrule an 10-user discussion; Wikipedia:Silence and consensus#Silence is the weakest form of consensus. If there is disagreement later about whether to have a full article (as there is now), the two-user discussion cannot control.

Although the "oppose a full article" arguments are more cogent, Green Cardamom promises that he will advance more specific arguments at AfD. Because this was previously discussed at AfD, I will give her an opportunity to make those arguments by listing this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word), a more formal venue that will hopefully generate input from more uninvolved users. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a request for help from outside parties in regards to dispute between myself and User:Rossami. As background, bloke has been a dab page for a long time. Yesterday I created a new article about bloke, and moved the dab page to Bloke (disambiguation). Rossami was of the opinion that my new article was actually a dictionary definition, so he reverted it back to a dab page.

This is a request for outside opinion on making this page into a full article about bloke. I've created a draft page bloke/bloke to work on the proposed new article. Opinions welcome about making this a new article for bloke.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Support creation of article Bloke (word), linked from dab page at Bloke. Definitely seems to be enough content for an article, most of it not included in, or suitable for, Wiktionary. Once article is well-developed, consider a WP:RM to move it to base name and move dab page to Bloke (disambiguation). PamD 20:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • As noted above, I oppose the re-creation of a mere dictionary definition in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For some futher background, this page started as a dictionary definition and was transwiki'd to Wiktionary, then turned into a disambiguation page. A few years later, it was rewritten as a definition again. The second time, it was simply reverted to disambiguation.
    Green Cardamom's rewrite this year was very well-written and well-sourced but it still only covered the meaning, etymology and usage of the word. That is all content which one would expect to see in a good, unabridged dictionary. It was written in paragraphs rather than in bullets but format is not what distinguishes a dictionary page from an encyclopedia page. The issue is content. The draft has no content beyond the purely lexical.
    Note: Wikipedia does have some encyclopedia articles that are about words rather than about the underlying concept - usually very specific pejoratives which have developed extensive social context and independent commentary. This is not a word with extensive social impact - it's a good word but it's just a word. I see no possibility of expansion beyond the lexical content. Rossami (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support either PamD's proposal, or moving this current page to Bloke (disambiguation) and moving bloke/bloke to main name space. Definition, etymology and usage notes are all the things you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about a word. The difference is the style of writing, emphasis, tone and other small things. Dictionaries and encyclopedia's often have the same factual content, they are just presented differently and expand on some things. The notability of the word for encyclopedic treatment (and thus existence of the article) is established by sources, not by personal opinion that the word is of no `social impact`. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • My apologies, it appears that my comment above was unclear. I agree that the issue is one of sources (not personal opinion). The challenge that differentiates an encyclopedia entry from a dictionary entry is the ability to find independent, reliable sources about the word that go beyond the merely lexical. An encyclopedia article may start with a definition (meaning, etymology, usage) but there must at some point be more to substantiate the article - those alone are insufficient. In general, that means that we must be able to find sources that discuss the word's impact on society. Lexical sources which merely confirm the existence of the word are not sufficient.
      As an example, American (word) is encyclopedic content because of the extensive sources which do not merely document meaning, etymology, etc but go further to discuss the societal implications of the preemptive use of that word by US citizens and the implication that Canadians, for example, are not "American". Those sources discuss (depending on the author's perspective) the arrogance of the US or the insecurity of the non-US in that proprietary usage. They discuss the historical, cultural and even legal complications that have come from the inherent ambiguity of the word. In other words, the sources discuss the impact of the word "American" on the outside world. Rossami (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not sure that (a version of) the content at Bloke/bloke rises to the required level of notability, since the two non-dictionary sources are both Michael Quinion, and both relate to etymology. I am willing to be convinced, but it will take more varied content and sourcing. On the other hand, I do think that the name of the page should be Bloke (word), as suggested by PamD, and as established by such pages as American (word), Football (word) etc. Cnilep (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I wouldn't exactly say we had an emergent consensus -- the tally seems to be 3 support the new page, 3 oppose and one undecided, apparently leaning towards oppose. That being said, I think you have established policy on your side and the discussion was far from over, so someone certainly jumped the gun. Nothing to do now though but finish the discussion and then take the issue to AfD (or maybe even speedy delete process) if we establish the article does not meet notability standards (which I think is a given). Or just leave it as a redirect to the dab. Snow (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
This RFC was about a different version of the article, it is now twice as large and addressed concerns raised in the RFC, the RFC served a purpose, thank you everyone for your comments. I believe Rossami's reading of the article as being purely lexical is overly strict, there is now stuff about the words impact on culture, not just use in culture. Going forward I would request the courtesy of an AFD to decide the fate of the article, as any other article. This RFC is not how to contest an article in mainspace, the situation has changed. AFD is how to determine the fate of a contested article. If it was just me vs everyone I would agree to Speedy, but there is actually 4 people showing support (George Ho, Myself, the person who moved it to mainspace, and Pam). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
With respect, I think you're going to find this discussion is far from over. There's actually only three supports (it seems this article was always in the mainspace since you created it there, it was simply renamed by Bearcat who found what he thought was a misnamed article and renamed it, as he clearly notes in his edit summary; at no point does he voice support for your position or any opinion on the article at all, other than that it was mislabeled, and he was presumably unaware of this discussion). By comparison, there are four voices opposing the entry who don't find Rossami's interpretation at all overly strict, bur rather in keeping with established policy. But really the numbers are not all that relevant as this is going to ultimately come down that very policy and as there is a fairly well-established precedent for cases such as this precedent runs counter to your aims here, I'm afraid you're facing an uphill battle. For my part, I feel the most recent changes do not change the core issue that this is a lexical entry and thus proscribed by policy; Wikipedia articles are for describing extended concepts, not providing dictionary definitions of commonplace words, no matter how many examples you can come up with for the word being used in popular culture. This is what is boils down to - the article's definition of bloke is basically that it is a synonym for "Man". We already have an entry for that concept. All other information in the new article concerns only the word -- it's origins and (with the new "Culture section) examples of its use in modern parlance. These roles do not constitute acceptable justification for the article. Also, the article's complexity of format has been artificially inflated by the nonsensical inclusion of three redundant sections ("Origins", "Etymology", and "History"). All of that being said, I see no reason why another RfC shouldn't be opened if that's how you want to proceed. Snow (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, AFD should decide the fate of the article, as any other article. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Different version, half the size but exactly the same problems. That expanded and rewritten version is still completely lexical content. I see nothing that matches the description of "impact on culture", merely extended examples of use in culture.
As a side note, AfD was inappropriate before because the page should have been (and was) returned to a far more useful status as a disambiguation page in one case and a redirect in the other (with pagehistory retained in both). Rossami (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Different version.. same problems.. obviously disagree for a number of reasons, but saving it for the AFD. Re: side note, usefulness is good, but in effect an entire new article had been deleted without due process, which was not good. It was an unusual situation which we compromised on with a draft and this RFC, but everything changed again when it got moved into mainspace. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, that move really has little binding impact at all, honestly. I mean we could blank that page, and stick a redirect back to the dab if that were called for without needing to deal with an AfD or speedy delete. The fact that someone completely unconnected with, and presumably unaware of, the current debate moved the page doesn't do anything to change the facts or the findings of the discussion on the debated content. The move does not offer any kind of procedural protection to summary deletion that it didn't have before. Actually, the fact that it was promoted to full article by mistake would only make the speedy delete more an option. But then, there was also nothing stopping you from promoting the article yourself during the RfC (continued edits are not disallowed during an RfC/AfD process, it's simply considered courteous and most practical to wait for a consensus view), and you operated in good faith waiting with the rest of us - it's not your fault that someone else jumped the gun. So AfD, RfC, whatever, so long as consensus emerges. But whoever puts up the article up on AfD, if that's the way the process goes, should be sure to link to this discussion at the top. Snow (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Of course the RFC would be linked and referenced in the AFD. Keep in mind the AFD would also add a banner at the top to notify readers who may want to participate in the discussion; it triggers watchlist notifications for anyone who has edited the article; it triggers notifications in other places like the AFD list; it creates a neutral third party moderator who decides the case; and other things. It's not the same as an RFC. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm quite aware of how an AfD works. But the AfD tag will be placed on Bloke (word), not here (though presumably someone will add a notice here as well). My concern was that the debate here be taken into account once the new discussion begins, since there is plenty of relevant commentary and some of those who took part may not be around to reiterate their views. Their contributions and perspectives should not go to waste just because someone cut the RfC short, afterall. Anyway, it's jsut a little caveat/reminder to whoever puts the article up for deletion. You say "of course" it will be, but clearly you're not the one that's going to nominate it, right? :) Snow (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes agreed, it's easy to link to this discussion, and even copy-paste arguments from here into the AFD, nothing is lost. Just pointing out that relevant people could be disenfranchised from the discussion if no AFD was created, and other problems. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Move discussion in progress

edit

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Bloke (word) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bloke (word) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloke_(disambiguation)&oldid=1243806755"