Talk:frumious

Deleted sense

From RfD:

1. (programming) (Should we delete⁽⁺⁾ this sense?) used in placeholders, often with the full phrase from Carroll “frumious Bandersnatch”
   • 2006, Woody Leonhard, Windows Vista All-in-One Desk Reference for Dummies, Wiley & Sons, →ISBN, page 238:

     Pshaw, man. You want to play Frumious Bandersnatch, you gotta open ports 418, 419, 420, an’ 421.

   • 2011, Doug Lowe, Word 2007 All-in-One Desk Reference for Dummies, Wiley & Sons, →ISBN:

     You might then decide that whenever you mention the Bandersnatch, you should add the word Frumious. So you then summon the Replace command to replace all occurrences of “Bandersnatch” with “Frumious Bandersnatch.”

   • 2014, Gary McLean Hall, Adaptive Code via C#: Agile coding with design patterns and SOLID principles, Microsoft Press, →ISBN, page 372:

     [TestCase("The frumious Bandersnatch!")]

RFD discussion: June 2019–April 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

frumious

Sense: frequently used in placeholders for computer programming - not a word, not relevant, not of use. - TheDaveRoss 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• How is it any different than foo? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that foo and bar as variables merit inclusion, I know that frumious as a variable name does not. i is extremely common as the variable being incremented in for-loops, but that does not make it an English word. Variable names aren't words in a language, they are arbitrary. They do not convey any meaning, you could replace them with literally anything else and not change what is being said. - TheDaveRoss 18:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• The second quote is not even a use. If this is not deleted, I would RFV it. Canonicalization (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a use. It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be? If your definition of a mention is lavish you can also call the first a use because it refers to what someone wants without appropriating it. And the third one is a test. Is a test containing a word list a use? Now I have given you a riddle to ruminate. Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "It is a directive to use the word. How more use can it be?". A lot more. One could substitute "aqxgydfji" for "frumious" and not change the "meaning" at all- it's just an arbitrary string of characters that was chosen to make the example easy to remember. You could do the same with any expression that can be divided into recognizable pieces, e.g., "Klaatu" and "barada nikto". re: "Is a test containing a word list a use?". No. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • One can do that anywhere. Not everything spammers send has a meaning. If the directive is to use a word with a meaning, then it is used. If the directive is to use a word with no meaning, then it isn’t used. For example if someone writes to his secretary to compose a letter for him and mention a certain thing, then we have a use at that point already. Then when the letter is composed it might not be an independent use. Though here I tend to assume that this “sense” “frumious” has no meaning. Which has nothing to do with whether the second quote is a mention or use. Fay Freak (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

To me this still has the normal Carrollian meaning (and indeed is often used in his phrase "frumious bandersnatch"). Suppose that the phrase "hot pancakes" was often used in computer programming: should we then have a separate sense at "hot", saying used as a programming placeholder? No. It's still pancakes that are very warm: the whole phrase just happens to be quoted in this context. (BTW I've never heard of this "frumious" in my programming career.) Equinox ◑ 18:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It could be moved down to the usage notes if desired, but there is no additional sense of this word beyond the first one. And the first one is very difficult to attest outside of references to Carroll. -Mike (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. It is not hard to find examples where the name “Bilbo” (or in full “Bilbo Baggins”) is used as an example string (like in 1,$s/Bilbo/Frodo/g and $_ = "Bilbo Baggins's birthday is September 22";) or as an example variable or user name. This is probably equally true for many other names from works of fiction that have attracted a somewhat nerdish cult following, like “Voldemort” or “Neo”. Such uses are not lexical; they have no inherent semantics.  --Lambiam 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Weak delete. It seems to strain the “no specific persons rule”, and also it’s true that there are many nonce words in programming manuals not intended to be found in a dictionary nor suitable for a dictionary. On the other hand I wot not how to deal with names like John Doe, Eva Mustermann (w:Talk:John Doe#List is extremely unencyclopedic for more). Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - TheDaveRoss 17:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)