Talk:Dag (slang)

Untitled

I have added a significant number of links relating to the topic for verification purposes. I have also significantly edited the article so it reflects only fact not personal opinion.

Thank you.

formatting and content

The formatting of this article is atrocious and there are no in-text references. The external links given seem to be mostly inapplicable or uninformative.

This thing really doesn't read like a Wikipedia article. I'm going to tag it as needing clean-up, but I'm not totally interested in doing it myself, as this article isn't important to me. I may wind up doing it anyway, but I may wind up nominating it for deletion instead. I'll keep my eye out for improvements, and maybe make some myself, if anyone is actively maintaining this page, I'd ask you to step forward and clean it up, since I have no expertise in this area. Cheeser1 06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The links have now been trimmed down to leave only those which contrast the term with other similar terms, give dictionary type definitions or give historical info and in text links have been added.

The article should now read akin to most Wikipedia articles.

Because the colloquial use of the word dag is so widely used and entries exist for similar terms such as 'geek', 'nerd', 'bogan', with dag being the one most specific to Australian English, it would be a shame to see an article explaining dags deleted provided the information in it was accurate.

I'm adding the clean up tag again. While the article is now much better, concerning its content, it still has style problems. The references aren't formatted properly, it has too many redundant wikilinks (including several to itself), and it still has unsourced statements that could use some sourcing (which means they need {{fact}} tags). The tone is also a bit off, and it has some weasel-word statements that could use clarification. I may do this clean up myself, if I find the time, but at the moment I'll have to leave it to someone else who can help the article meet formatting and tone requirements better. Thank you though for helping to clean up the content, it does look significantly better. Cheeser1 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone back and I think I have now addressed these. I hope so. I'm slowly 'getting it'.

The references aren't formatted properly, it has too many redundant wikilinks (including several to itself),

yes, I've found those and removed them. Sorry.

and it still has unsourced statements that could use some sourcing (which means they need {{fact}} tags).

Yes, I've put these where they are valid. Hope I've done it properly.

Although the colloquial use of the word 'dag' for this archetype/subculture is a common day use and such characters appear widely in media, (and in Australian media sometimes overtly referred to as such)there is little writing yet on the dag archetype.subculture beyond the various tourist dictionary and dictionary sites. This may be because this use of the term dag, whilst first recorded used in 1916 has only been common since the mid 1970s. The need for this article arises from cultural confusion between dags and bogans and this has a big impact on Australian identity in which Australian's used to see dags as eccentrics but the recent confusion is lumping them in with bogans as a sort of cultural embarrassment. An example of this confusion is recent film titled 'dags' which instead portrays only 'bogan' archetypes.

The tone is also a bit off,

I think that's been fixed now.

and it has some weasel-word statements that could use clarification.

Yes, the style was too journalistic and laid back. I believe I'd addressed that.

Thank you for your assistance.

Its all a learning process.

I have a little time now, I'm going to try to clean up everything except maybe the references (they are a bit more difficult to lay out). Please note the edit summary: on talk pages, one does not break up other people's responses. I do welcome you to Wikipedia though, and would encourage you to register a username and to read up on editing policy (start with Help:Contents). And be sure to sign your comments on Talk pages with ~~~~ . Cheeser1 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's taking longer than I though, and also I got roped into working over the weekend, so it may be a few days before I give it the overhaul. Cheeser1 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose moving this page to something other than "(subculture)" - this parenthetical seems to get tacked onto virtually any group of people, but it is quite far from justified in this case. None of the references or links take us to anything that seems to substantiate this as more than just a slang term (like "dork" or "loser" - not subcultures). I would say Dag (slang) or Dag (Australia) would be appropriate, but I'm open to suggestions and discussion. If nobody speaks up, I'll move it in a few days. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever succeeded in explaining "dag" to a friend from the US. The current article, IMO, doesn't do a bad job. I'd suggest "slang" or "Australia/NZ slang" would fit. It's not a sub-culture in any sense. [MB/AP]

Agreed to the above, this does not belong at all in "subculture". There is no "dag" subculture, and the very idea of that goes against the concept of what a "dag" is. You can't try to be a dag, you can only allow your dagginess out. It's not a fashion and it's not a statement, it's almost the opposite of those things. A dag lacks self consciousness, they care a little less about what people think, at least when it comes to where that conflicts with them just being themselves, maybe they can't act any differently, or maybe they just couldn't be bothered trying to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.72.64 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. Preference for Dag (slang) because it is indeed slang and the New Zealand would never forgive us if we put Dag (Australia). Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Agree Preference for Dag (slang). I knew the word when I was growing up in Australia. But I knew that the term actually referred to both a turd hanging off a sheep's wooly ass and as a descriptive term to describe a person. We discussed all those years ago that it was a slang term that was for colloquial use but to be avoided in polite society or with sophisticated people. We understood that foreigners new to Australian wouldn't directly understand what the word meant and this we found genuinely amusing. But I never understood it as representing a subculture. The meaning of words shifts over time, and it may well have changed meaning since I left Australia. But it's still a slang term with multiple meanings. -Zachar (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus. This proposal has stood for over four months and there is a definite consensus for Dag (slang). Consequently, I will move it. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Now moved to Dag (slang). Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)