Talk:Git (slang)

Harry Potter

I removed the line about "git" being used in the Harry Potter books and films– It is understood that the author is British, and they say "git". No need to ay it unless you plan on listing every piece of British literature that says "git". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.184.74 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-15 01:02:12 (UTC)

The same argument could probably be made for the white album line. Artw 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The English version is pronounced /gɪt/ Presumably, the US version referring to midgets is pronounced: /dʒɪt/

If this is right (any Southerners out there?), I'd change the first sentence of the article to:

Git (IPA: [ˈgɪt]) is a relatively mild British slang term, used to denote a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, childish or senile elderly person. It is usually used as an insult, more severe than twit but less severe than a true profanity like wanker or arsehole, and may often be used affectionately between friends. In some southern U.S. states, git (IPA: [ˈdʒɪt]) is a shortened form of midget, used to denote a short person.

- Gobeirne 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Expand, merge or redirect

This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meanings, probable etymology and usage notes of a slang term. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
2. Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A soft-redirect is still the best solution at the moment, given the lack of encyclopedic information available (the bulk of which is essentially "In popular culture" usages). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, that version does not assist our readership in any useful way and is contrary to our editing and content policies. To expand the article, it is best to present the material in our usual way. I have expanded the article further by reference to external encyclopedia and other reliable works. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not being removed because it's a swear word, it's being removed because it's simply a word. If you want to merge the content into other article(s) like British swear words or something, go right ahead, there's no principle that articles or content should be kept if they violate an ISNOT, as this one does. - BigBodBad (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Are you absolutely that sure of your etymology? I know that your explanation is a common one, but so is "Geat" (a Goth), i.e. a barbaric uncivilised person. 68.99.252.93 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry did that by accident, how do i restore it

92.24.23.91 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

already reverted. No prob. Cheers petiatil ^{»user»speak} 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)