Talk:wall humping

Removal of citations

Inappropriate removal of citations. Check the sources of the citations, please, the quotes are indeed there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But not a single one valid for attestation. Such citations are mostly a waste of time. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are they not valid for attestation? They are valid uses of the term. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WT:ATTEST re "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 17:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please identify specifically what problems you have with specific individual citations, so that we may discuss them, here. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the citations of sense 1:

The 2001 Statesman citation is mentioning rather than using (w:Use–mention_distinction) the term; we require citations to use terms (WT:CFI#Conveying_meaning).

The 2001 Gazette citation appears to be from a published (printed, on paper) newspaper, which is good...except that it's a mention, not a use.

The 2005 citation is also a mention, not a use.

The 2008 citation is from a book; it's good, in that it's durable: but it seems to be using sense 2, not sense 1.

The 2009 and 2010 citations are both from websites, which we do not consider durably archived, even with Internet Archive links, because domain registrations can lapse, and new owners can pull past content off the Internet Archive (WT:BP#More_on_the_Wayback_Machine).

That means this sense needs one or two more citations: only one more if others agree that the 2008 citation is using sense 1, two more if others feel it's using sense 2. I'll go over the citations of sense 2 in a moment. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the citations of sense 2:

The 1994 citation appears to be from a published (printed, on paper) newspaper, so it's good.

The 2003 citation is a website, which is not durably archived. It's a newspaper website; if we could verify that the story containing the word also appeared in print, on paper (which libraries archive), then the citation would be good (but until we can find out that the story appeared in print, which is often difficult to determine, it's no good).

The 2010 citation is a book; it's good.

The 2011 citation is like the 2003 citation (a website—can we tell if the story appeared in print?).

My suggestion is that we move the 2008 citation from sense 1 to sense 2 (where it seems to belong), which would mean sense 2 had three durably archived citations and met CFI. Sense 2 would be kept, and sense 1 would be deleted. If we do not do that, then sense 2 needs one more citation. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the "website" distinction for sense 2 = those are actually newspaper articles. I found them through durable archives, such as LexisNexis. They are not websites. Or, if they are available online, that is only in addition to being available in print. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Resolved, per diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Research in-progress

Note: I'm in the process of adding additional citations, and definitions. Please, bear with me! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Durability of citations

Thanks for the helpful pointer about durability of citations. I've added a few back, with links to multiple archived pages at Internet Archive. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Part of Speech

I've been tweaking the definitions based on the assumption that this was a noun... but I see that some of the citations could be interpreted as using a participle (in which case the lemma would be [[wall hump]].) So... should we change the header to ===Noun===, or does anyone feel that this is, as labelled, a verb? - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the citations, it appears to be used as both. -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in any of the citations that it is used as a verb, ie, "will be wall humping", "is/are wall humping", "was/were wall humping", "has/have/had been wall humping". It seems to following a common pattern of establishing itself as a noun in the -ing form before the other inflected forms of the putative verb evidence themselves. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Check the citations again please. It's both. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assessment, and agree with DCDuring's: it seems to be a noun. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad we can respectfully disagree, just hopefully the page itself won't get deleted. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

~ Robin (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that's what I call evidence. Too bad it isn't durably archived, which would immediately resolve this. I don't know whether we should adopt the practice of resolving PoS issues like this by allowing non-durably archived evidence about the existence of forms that would resolve ambiguities about the PoS. This does come up. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, still in the process of doing additional research on this. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense

Why were these tags added? These definitions have multiple different appropriate citations. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, per diff. -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sum of parts

I think you should add the sense to hump and delete this entry. Siuenti (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the same. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

None of the many quotations presented seem to be from sources we accept. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Citations:wall humping. They're all found in searches of newsgroups. -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've added a bunch more citations with quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"The act of moving one's leg back and forth over a scanning device" now has 2(?) valid citations, presuming the one newspaper, which was apparently in print, counts while the other paper cite does not.

"Gyrating the hips towards a wall in a sexual fashion" now has 2(?) valid citations, again presuming the one newspaper, which was apparently in print, counts while the other does not.

"A sexually suggestive character movement in a video game" (which is not an ideal definition) has no valid citations.

- -sche (discuss) 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note: Please see my note on the talk page. I'm in the process (now) of doing additional research. I'm adding "valid citations", e.g. from Usenet. Thank you for your time and your patience, it is most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The video game sense is cited, and passes RFV. The sense "gyrating the hips sexually" is cited, and passes RFV. The scanner sense has been removed (the insufficient citations it had have been preserved on the citations page). Thanks, Cirt, for your persistent work in citing the senses of this term. Cheers, all, - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)