Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/creeper validation

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

creeper validation

[edit]

Voting on: Do we want to accept the twitter citations in support of the definition "something that explodes violently and unexpectedly" for creeper?

Schedule:

@Kiwima, Whoop whoop pull up I am restarting the time on this vote, as it was never listed on WT:V. This, that and the other (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other Should we update the timestamps on our votes to accord with the updated start date? (Also, did you remember to update the end date to account for the change in the start date?) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Whoop whoop pull up I did update the end date; these votes run for 2 weeks. Up to you as to whether you want to update the timestamp. This, that and the other (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just updated mine; no idea what Kiwima wants to do with theirs. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 23:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Uses are all on Twitter, but there is a very large number of them. Kiwima (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted on the talk page of this vote, none of the citations are actually using the word "creeper" to refer to "something that explodes violently and unexpectedly" (other than the actual enemy). They are just comparing those things to the enemies using similes ("like a creeper"). You can also find results on Twitter for "green like a creeper", but I don't think that justifies adding a subsense "something green". 70.172.194.25 22:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Extensive, clearly contextualised use on Twitter is demonstrated over a period of several years. What more could we want? This, that and the other (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support AG202 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: widespread use. --Svartava (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Of course this term only appears in metaphors or similes as there aren’t any things I know of IRL that are black, white and green and that chase you before they explode! Clearly attested though. Will the detractors only be happy accepting this as a word if it takes on a different but related meaning? For example a bomb, pursuer or angry person? Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Overlordnat1 Read the OP carefully. This vote is not for sense 17: "A mottled black, white and green enemy in the video game Minecraft, which attacks the player by chasing them and exploding.". I have no issue with that. It is rather for sense 17.1: "Something that explodes violently and unexpectedly."
    None of the existing quotes support sense 17.1, i.e. that the word "creeper" is used for something that explodes other than the Minecraft enemy.
    As another example, if I found a quotation of someone saying "the scarf was as fluffy as a rabbit", that does not support adding a new definition to rabbit of "something fluffy". Because it's clearly just comparing the scarf to a rabbit in the sense of the animal, which happens to be fluffy.
    An example of a hypothetical sentence that would constitute support for sense 17.1 as distinct from sense 17: "After inserting Mentos, the bottle of soda was a total creeper!" But that's not how the word is actually used. 70.172.194.25 21:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @70.172.194.25 It basically says at the top of this voting page that we’re voting on sense 17.1, which I oppose, but the tagged sense is the valid sense 17 (which I support) and I’m voting on that basis. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Binarystep (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose, and Kiwima should be banned from starting votes. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 03:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't doubt this could be a real sense that's in use, but none of the cites demonstrate it. Similes can be created using any term; this doesn't mean we should have a sense for every characteristic of an item being used for comparison. All of those cites are for sense 17, not 17.1. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 20:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - TheDaveRoss 16:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per 70's well-articulated objections to sense 17.1. Sense 17 is clearly attested by the cites, but the wording of this vote contradicts the placement of the RFV. This kind of thing is why RFV decisions should not be made through votes: if this passess, which sense has passed RFV? Winthrop23 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kiwima are you able to clarify here? This, that and the other (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFV applies to both 17 and 17.1. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see the problem:
    • the cites on Citations:creeper are all under a heading claiming that they support sense 17.1, and
    • the top of this vote says "something that explodes violently and unexpectedly", which is the wording of sense 17.1, but...
    • sense 17 has the RFV tag, so we should be voting on 17, even though it doesn't have any citations!
    I bear some of the responsibility for this confusion, as I (re)started the vote without checking it over first... This, that and the other (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @This, that and the other: Another problem with these votes is that it seems the entry is kept even if the validation has failed (see FaCIAbook, RFV-passed after the vote ended). Did I misunderstand the point of validation (i.e., whether the entry is kept)? J3133 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like an oversight, but I didn't have anything to do with that one. This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Mainly because “Twitter”⁇ ‑‑Kai Burghardt (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain This discussion should be taking place at RFV, not here. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 23:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain This issue is not what votes are for. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain Stop making votes for this. Resolve it in RFV. This is a gross misuse of the format. Vininn126 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain Cnilep (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abstain - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

No consensus 6-5-5 (56%). This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2022-05/creeper_validation&oldid=76741368"