Jump to content

Talk:Aristo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sugar Daddy claim

[edit]

Must be reliably documented.--Galassi (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not documented? Did you bother with your search engine before concluding this? There are several reliable sources documenting the definition you're removing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and several others. In your latest edit summary, you cited WP:UNDUE. Assuming this is the case, totally removing this definition is definitely a wrong solution. If you think this definition shouldn't be included on this disambiguation page, please state a clear and valid reason here, before going on to remove content once more.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a regional term. In any case you will need to provide a scholarly RELIABLE SOURCE attesting to the definition.--Galassi (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a valid term - it may be included in Wiktionary. As it is - it is UNENCYCLOPEDIC.--Galassi (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to write a separate article on Asristo as a sex term. If such an article stands - it will be included in the Disambiguation.--Galassi (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that are provided are reliable sources: there are major news papers, and journals in the above listed. It doesn't have to be scholarly source, maybe you should read and understand WP:RS Also, it doesn't need to have a page to be in the disambiguation. Sugardaddy didn't need a page to be included in its disambiguation page. There's no Wikipedia policy affirming this. Stop edit warring, removing warnings on your page won't change anything; that's why page histories exist.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which source does explicitly say that Ariso means Sugar daddy etc.?--Galassi (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@Galassi: Please, state a clear and valid guideline based reason why you think the former revision shouldn't stay. If you can't, the page would be reverted to it's former state. Cheers.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your version gives undue weight to a insignificant use of the word. 2. It is less common than sugar daddy. 2. None of your sources state that aristo MEANS sugar-d. They merely mention the word. Not enough. 3. You need at least one SCHOLARLY source that would define aristo as sugar-d. 4. Consider putting it in the Wiktionary.--Galassi (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the see also section; Why shouldn't the definition of Aristo (this: "slang term for a wealthy man who offers to support a typically younger woman or man after establishing a relationship that is usually sexual") be included in this article? And remember: valid guideline based reason is the key word.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a minor occurrence, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. It may be mentioned if it ever becomes worth its own article. But not until then.--Galassi (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor occurrence? Why do you think it is? And do you realize that it is the only definition with the exclusive spelling of the page title? Hence, the primary topic to this page?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Possibly because sugar daddy is a lot more common? In any case it would inappropriate to give it more weight that others on a DISAMBIGUATION page. It could only be tolerated if you had a separate article. No redlinks, please.--Galassi (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where on wikipedia is there a guideline that stops different words with similar meanings from appearing on their individual disambiguation pages? Note that so far, you still haven't given valid guideline that justifies your content removal.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a minor occurence, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTABILITY. You either write a separate article on your subject, or cease and desist.--Galassi (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is notable and has been proven in the earlier discussion. if your problem is the lack of article, why don't you move to other disambiguation pages using definitions without articles, and let's see the response you get? Why are you particular about being disruptive on this particular article. Get a consensus or give a valid guideline and stop repeating the unvalid ones you keep rehashing.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary cannot be used as a reference. You MUST provide a scholarly RS that clearly defines the term. Otherwise you are violating many rules mentioned above, ans well as OR and SYNTH.--Galassi (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply doesn't carry sufficient notability. That's why you canno properrly sourse it.--Galassi (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have a cyclic discussion with you anymore. Give valid reasons for your content removal, which is now amounting to just plain vandalism. And I see you're no longer deleting just "Aristo" entry. Do you even know what Disambiguation pages are meant for?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CEase and desist! You are adding non-notable, unencyclopedic and undocumentable content.--Galassi (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to provide a neutral viewpoint on this dispute. Relevant guidelines:

  • WP:DABDIC: "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." (emphasis mine)
  • WP:NOTDIC: "Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a hacker or a Cockney chimney-sweep; we're writing an encyclopedia."
  • WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

Applying these guidelines it seems a disambiguation page can include a definition if that definition consists of the common general meaning. If it does not, then enough appropriate sources need to be provided to show an article can be written about the neologism and survive deletion nominations. --NeilN talk to me 02:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristo&oldid=1253718541"