Talk:Bogey

Deleted item

• a representative or typical specimen, with average or design centre characteristics - usually used to describe the centre of the distribution of a characteristic or several characteristics of manufactured parts. "The design has been optimised for a bogey device, and should work satisfactorily with any part meeting the maker's specifications". Also "bogey values" - expected measurements from a typical device.

If verified, deserves an article or a section and a redirect. So far I see little online. Very local engineering slang? Notability? `'mikka 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why is there no entry for the "pick and flick" material in one's nose? I don't know the technical name for it so I can't do the link myself but I was hoping to read up on it but now can't. 161.12.7.4 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Any consideration / thoughts on adding an additional term for "Bogey": A target number you wish to obtain. Example: My bogey for sales revenue this year is $1.7 million. 12.130.114.24 (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mucus

I added an entry for what I understand to be the most obvious meaning of Bogey, dried nasal mucus, but it appears User:Mikkalai censored my entry and, by looking at the article history, has reverted other's entries for the British English term Bogey. I can't think of any other term which is in common use in Britain which means dried nasal mucus, and I can't think of any British person who doesn't know what a Bogey (in terms of dried nasal mucus) is. The undo on this edit should be reversed.Nick R Hill (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have article about "dried nasal mucus". Disambig pages are for navigation between wikipedia articles. Your case of "bogey" is just a dictionary definition and you will find it by clicking the {{wiktionary}} link in the "Bogey" page (BTW which contains even more meanings of the word). Wiktionary is for dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles. You are welcome to write an article about dried nasal mucus, but please don't forget to follow the basic rules summarized in wikipedia:Attribution, which even British persons must follow in wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 22:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I suggested that persons of any particular nationality should on principle not follow Wikipedia rules. I did, however, suggest that the term Bogey is certainly a British term relating to solid or semi-solid nasal mucus. The same may be true in other English-speaking areas. The idea of writing an article on dried nasal mucus doesn't particularly inspire me, although I imagine there are people out there who would find this an inspiring subject. There is, however, an article on Mucus, and in my opinion, the semi-dry form does not demand a separate article. I performed a search on Wikipedia after having been quizzed on what a bogey actually consists of. The article on Mucus provides the information which satisfied the question. I therefore remain of the opinion the term Bogey should link to Mucus.Nick R Hill (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Following that logic then Mikkalai, you should delete the link to Mucus from the Booger page, which I believe is a primarily American term for the same substance. T-r-davies (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that if a comic read this discussion, he would have suitable material for a hilarious television sketch. --Nick R Hill (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the link to mucus since it's common usage. I would ask that users desist from whatever misguided ideals are behind its frankly rather inexplicable removal. --—Chris (blather • contribs) 22:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference from a dictionary that it is a common usage, per WP:CITE. The article Mucus does not define bogey. Therefore this term cannot be in disambig page. `'Míkka>t 01:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Shorter OED, bogey, "5. A piece of nasal mucus. colloq." Now can we please desist with the countless reversions? --—Chris (blather • contribs) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Any unreferenced information may be deleted at any moment. Now can we please desist adding unreferenced information, in violation of the most basic wikipedia policy? `'Míkka>t 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this really need to go to arbitration before you'll stop pissing about? Somebody else can deal with you, life's too short. --—Chris (blather • contribs) 02:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just add a valid reference in mucus article and live long and happy ever after? You don't have to deal with me; only if you have more fun fighting than improving the quality of wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 02:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I provided the reference you asked for here. You ignored it and reverted anyway. If I waste any further time on this it'll be to ask an admin to sort it out. --—Chris (blather • contribs) 02:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please ask your friendly admin about the meaning of the term "reference" and how they are used in wikipedia, since you will obviously not listen to me. `'Míkka>t 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, chill out, it doesn't seem worth fighting over. I propose a wiktionary link to the dried nasal mucus meaning at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogey would seem the right thing to do. It seems like a significant target that the reader might well be looking for, but I was influenced in this opinion by the fact that the article at mucus doesn't have much to say about the dried nasal variety. If that changes in the future we should consider a wikilink but at present the dicdef will be more of a service to our readers. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)