Talk:Snicklefritz

Previous "unreliable source" comments

There were 2 previous comments in the first and third paragraphs questioning the reliability of the sources. However, the reference which includes definitions stated in the Wahrig German Dictionary (references 3 & 4) basically reinforce the other areas. Hopefully this is acceptable, since I didn't see any specific comments in the Talk section regarding the previous source concerns. Yobbo14 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading

"Schnickelfritz" is generally thought to be German slang that a relative would use as a term of endearment for a child. It roughly translates to "little rascal." This could mean that the word is indeed known in Germany. It is not, though. --FA2010 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to consider the era in which this term was likely used - probably late 1800s to early and mid 1900s was when it was used most. Not really a contemporary term, either in the U.S. or German regions. Additionally, I tend to think that particular sentence ("...generally thought to be German slang that a relative would use as a term of endearment for a child. It roughly translates to 'little rascal'...") is fairly redundant, as the first couple of sentences in the article already allude to the same definition. Will wait a bit for reasonable objections before removing. Yobbo14 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My West-Side Cincinnati German grandfather frequently called me this as a child (late 70's, early 80's.) I took it as a term of endearment, i.e. "little rascal." He also called me "Honschwoosh" with the same inflection. Shrug. 205.142.197.121 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Italic title

Regarding the rationale for removing the {{italic title}} template, I assume that the relevant comment is this one:

There are a few sentences in the Snicklefritz article where the word is not (and should not) be italicised. For each sentence it is clear whether the word should be italicised or not, each sentence giving the context that is needed to determine whether the word should be italicised or not. Without context (as is most often the case for an article title) the "words as words" rationale for italicisation can not be applied.
— User:Francis Schonken 14:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The places where snicklefritz is not italicized in the article are either direct quotes or the names of fictional characters etc. In all other instances, it is italicized per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English".

The only possible context in which to view the title is that of a treatment of the word itself as the article subject – see WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Therefore MOS:WORDSASWORDS also applies to the title and the various mentions of the word snicklefritz within the article. Therefore, I suggest restoring {{italic title}} to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – a "words as words" rationale for italicisation needs a grammatical/syntactical context. An article title that only presents the word that is the topic of the article lacks that grammatical/syntactical context. One needs at least two words in a grammatical/syntactical relation to determine whether one of them may be italicised for a "words as words" rationale (e.g. "singular they") --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The context is provided here by the article content itself. The word is the subject, therefore the title implies some such construction as Snicklefritz (word). However, even without such a rationale, the WP:ITALICTITLE policy and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC state that foreign words and phrases are italicized both in running text and article titles. Clearly, Snicklefritz is a non-English word that should be italicized in the title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

* I've restored the template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that the change was undone without discussion, so I've requested a third opinion. Once again, Italics are applied to titles that are normally italicized in running text such as foreign phrases, including isolated foreign words. Snicklefritz is a Pennsylvania Dutch term, not English, and should therefore normally be italicized. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

The title, IMO, probably should be italicized, because it is a foreign word. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, the word is *English* dialect or slang: as such this word doesn't exist in any other language, it only exists in English (dialect). As the page is now a mere dictionary definition, apart from some WP:COATRACKing (German ... Schnickschnack ...), we'd need a soft redirect to wikt:snicklefritz. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, linguist Anatoly Liberman says that "the equally popular form schnicklefritz [...] indicates that the word is also current in southern German", although he says this is a "mere guess". I haven't found any sources stating that Snicklefritz only exists in English – that appears to be overstating the case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Something formulated as a guess ("...indicates that..." – apparently without checking whether it really does) on a blog would usually be insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Further, not about the actual term (as used in English), but about its (supposed) German counterpart. But, all the same, it is etymology: thus for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia if there's nothing else than a dictionary definition ("meaning" + "etymology") to report on the term. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Pop culture trivia removed

I've removed a chunk of text that was just a bunch of unsourced, trivial instances of use in various pop cultural works. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." See also WP:TRIVIA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)