Talk:Robert

Clarify, add

In the Related terms section it says "pet forms". What does "pet form" mean? See pet name; a pet name is a type of a diminutive form, I think.

Is Bert a pet form of Robert? The entry for Bert states that it is a diminutive form of Robert. --Spunionztastic (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added Bert, Bertie and Bertha now. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–October 2024

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Robert

Lulu

Moved from WT:RFVE

The page claims that Robert means "idiot" in Chinese and it does so because of some TV series. There is only one source and that same source is impossible to verify, no other sources on the internet seem to agree with this and the edit seems like nothing but vandalism. This has no reason to be here and it doesnt meet the criteria for inclusion in any way. 86.50.70.58 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of the term, if three attestations are found then it will meet WT:CFI. We don't exclude terms because people don't like them. Theknightwho (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is not what I am saying as there are no sources online where I could found this being supported and profanities like this are often added in order to vandalize articles. Also, there was no need to respond in such an unpleasant manner. Think of what you say and how it might come across before typing. 86.50.70.58 20:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have been nicer if you hadn't called another contributor "incredibly ignorant" ([1]) while accusing them of protecting vandals ([2]), because they reverted your out-of-process removals and told you to do things properly. Hopefully it's clearer why they did that now, given that your assumptions have turned out to be wrong: whether or not it's attestable, it's clearly not vandalism, and I trust wpi as a native Cantonese speaker to know what they're doing. Theknightwho (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It would have been nicer if the other contributor actually tried to understand what I was doing instead of blindly protecting the inclusion of a profanity which doesn't seem to be supported by any sources online. Seems like pretty ignorant behaviour to me, atleast if I had a Wiktionary account I wouldnt act this way and actually tried to listen to people. Whether it's added by a native speaker or not is irrelevant, we still need the sources since I, as a native speaker of Finnish, might as well add that "Andrew" means diarrhea in Finnish and then expect others to trust me because I'm a native speaker.86.50.70.58 07:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing ignorant about telling you to abide by site policy, and we're not going to make a special exception just for you - you're just being defensive. If it's not attestable then it will be removed, after going through RFV, just like every other term. Given you're new to this, I strongly advise you to learn how things work before you start throwing around accusations and demanding your own way. Theknightwho (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not demanding anything, I simply don't understand why we also can't use common sense instead of just blindly enforcing site rules. 86.50.70.58 08:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my bad - I didn't realise that we should only include terms that you can personally find examples of, and that if you can't find it we should simply remove it immediately without any attempt to cite it. Theknightwho (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is once again not what I am saying but whatever, think what you want, I don't over you an explanation. I simply said that we should first find out whether this is actually true and only then add it as that'd make more sense but fine, whatever you want. It's not like this isn't the last time I try to contribute something to this ridiculous website. If we can't do this normally without immediately jumping to block people and accuse them of being a vandal when they simply remove questionable content that strongly appears like vandalism, then I have no will to ever create an account. 86.50.70.58 12:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Most places expect you to abide by the rules and will sanction you if you don't. That's just how life works. What you're demanding here (that we verify first) is not, and has never been, how Wiktionary works. This is explained at the top of the page. You also didn't contribute anything - you just removed something (repeatedly - to the point where you had to be blocked) then argued with people. Theknightwho (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed it only two times, and the second time I did I also left an explanation why. If I was indeed wrong then I would have appreciated being told that, instead of just being blocked and treated like a criminal of some sort. I don't think doing something two times is equal to doing something so much to a point I have to be blocked. Learn to be civil, otherwise I'm not the only one you'll scare away from Wiktionary. 86.50.70.58 20:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Three times on Robert and twice on Lulu, so that's five removals, in which you even removed a reference, so you very well know why you were blocked. No-one has been uncivil towards you, despite your own rude behaviour. Theknightwho (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: “if three attestations are found then it will meet WT:CFI”: One attestation suffices as Cantonese is not a WT:WDL. – wpi (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems you really, really want this to be included and will do anything to make it stay. Why is leaving a basically unattested profanity in an article so important to you? And on top of that I can't find anywhere that itd say that some languages are sufficient with just one attestation. We need three with all languages. 86.50.70.58 07:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, this looks consistent with a common form of vandalism: change the definition of a name to indirectly insult a specific person with that name. In this case, though, it was added by a regular contributor who is apparently a native speaker, so vandalism is highly unlikely. The only way to be sure is to tag it and submit it to Requests for Verification so that people who know the language can check.

Simply removing definitions based on a hunch like that without checking the context is a very bad idea. For instance, in English, I can imagine a conversation something like this: "Person 1: Have you ever dealt with someone so incredibly stupid?" "Person 2: Never. I've dealt with idiots in my time, but she's a real lulu!" That's because "lulu" can be used in English to refer to a wildly extreme example of something. Sometimes reality is stranger than anything you could make up. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We still do need the sources that match the criteria for attestation as explained in Wiktionary rules and I can not find a single source online that claims this. There would be atleast a few dictionqaries mentioning this if it was a commonly used term but there doesnt seem to be any. 86.50.70.58 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WT:CFI. We do not rely on dictionaries; we rely on attestations. Whether other dictionaries include the term is irrelevant, because we care about whether a term is actually used. Some terms which are widely used are never printed in dictionaries, while conversely, some dictionaries contain words which are never actually used. Theknightwho (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Which I understand and probably should've mentioned that there are no materials online, be it dictionaries or anything else where this would be used. There's no need to assume things about what I do or don't understand. 86.50.70.58 07:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Cited for both. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We need at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. 86.50.70.58 08:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't. Cantonese is not a WT:WDL. But just for argument's sake, there is no issue with the "spanning at least a year" bit because the quotes span from 2000 to 2017 for Lulu and 1999 to 2011 for Robert. There are also 3 instances of each. The only debatable part is independence, since the quotes for Robert especially are very similar (although they are all slightly different). But either way, even one quote is enough for LDL languages. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 13:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The independence is indeed questionable if I understand the rules I read properly. But the sources are very obscure and even if this is indeed real, it doesn't really seem to show "clear widespread use" which is one of the criteria. Also, the sources are not only very obscure, but they don't necessarily make it clear what the term means there (at least for Robert, that is). Also, since these aren't supposed to be used as given names, both of these offensive terms shoud've been added to the pages robert and lulu in the first place, not Robert and Lulu where they're exclusively about given names and their etymology. 86.50.70.58 17:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The criteria do not both have to be satisfied. It's one or the other. The "clear widespread use" criterion exists so that people can't bog everything down by demanding citations for ball or hello. Your last point is completely irrelevant - this isn't English, even if it was, plenty of English nouns are capitalised derivations from names, and words aren't defined by their etymologies anyway. Theknightwho (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that words are defined by etymologies. Simply stated that the word isn't used as a given name and in Cantonese it obviously wouldn't be capitalized so adding it to the non-capitalized page would make more sense. It has nothing to do with wether plenty of English nouns are capitalised derivations from names or not. In the context, it simply makes sense to add it therw instead then. But I guess I'm not allowed to state that without you jumping at me and telling me everything I say is so irrelevant. 86.50.70.58 17:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

in Cantonese it obviously wouldn't be capitalized - this is an assumption, and it's not necessarily true. Theknightwho (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Cantonese doesn't use latin script so when spelled it's more likely not going to be written using Latin cript, it's probably be Cantonese script. And when Cantonese script is used and the name is used as a noun, it's most likely not going to be capitalized, just like the "lo bat" transliteration for example isn't capitalized. 86.50.70.58 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of Cantonese words are written in Latin script. Because the noun usage is derived from a proper name, it is not surprising to see that the capitalization of Robert is kept; all the quotes show capitalization. Do not confuse transliteration and "actual" writing. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Justin and wpi are both native Cantonese speakers - we do not need to guess with "more likely" and "most likely". Theknightwho (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not guessing anything, I'm pointing to how things are normally spelled using different scripts. There is a seperate page, non-capitalized robert which seems to deal with the word as a noun, not a given name and if this is indeed real, then adding it there would make more sense as in this context it's used as a noun and that way it wouldn't clutter the page. The same applies to Lulu. 86.50.70.58 07:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A French word for "tit" (which is the only term at robert) is completely irrelevant to a Cantonese term that isn't even attested using the lowercase form. Sorry. I think we can probably draw this to a close at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• RFV passed. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)