Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:J-Lo. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:J-Lo, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:J-Lo in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:J-Lo you have here. The definition of the word Talk:J-Lo will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:J-Lo, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFD
Latest comment: 8 years ago41 comments13 people in discussion
I can't see a compelling reason to delete them. (BTW, not all are celebrities, or individuals: Led Zep, Apop, Codies.) To me they are no worse (and perhaps less bad) than e.g. Einstein being defined as a specific person (Albert) who bore that surname. Equinox◑16:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
It isn't totally clear to me how these meet the CFI, nicknames are certainly not specifically addressed, they aren't "given names" in the sense that I read it. Tabloid papers generate dozens of these types of names on a weekly basis. Is notability of the subject a factor? How about nicknames for celebrity couples (Brangelina)? How about buildings (the House that Ruth Built)? How about nicknames for fictional characters (the Boy Who Lived)? It seems to me that if we aren't going to include Kristen Stewart we ought not include KStew. - TheDaveRoss19:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
WT:NSE gives you a discretion: "Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. However, policies exist for names of certain kinds of entities."
Thus, you can figure out the reason for which they should be excluded, present the reason, and try to convince other editors to support their deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@TheDaveRoss One of the quirks of CFI as currently written is that abbreviations or nicknames tend to almost always pass CFI, even if the things they would abbreviate would not (My personal remedy to this is to allow anything with an abbreviation that passes CFI be allowed to also pass CFI). Purplebackpack8922:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Delete all. Let's clear up one thing first. We include certain names like Einstein, Napoleon, and Benedict Arnold because they are used to describe others with characteristics associated with the original person, not because they are used to identify the person. Unless we have citations to the use of J-Lo in the sense of describing somebody other than Jennifer Lopez as "a J-Lo", then including this is no different than including any celebrity known by a mononym (Cher, Björk, Bono, Sting). bd2412T14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I had thought we only included the proper noun versions because they also have the common noun usage. In the same way that it is acceptable to include a non-idiomatic definition in addition to an idiomatic definition if a term is used both ways. - TheDaveRoss14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Are the nominated forms actually words, though? Take J-Lo, for example. J as used here is a first-initial abbreviation for a name starting with "J", in the same way that the J in J. R. R. Tolkien is a first-initial abbreviation for John. Lo is being used as an abbreviation for Lopez. In theory, a John Lopez or a Jessica Lowell could just as easily be called J-Lo. The fact that a unit combines abbreviated forms with a hyphen can not itself be a reason for inclusion, or we would have an entry for every attested hyphenated surname combination (Johnson-Ferguson, Joyner-Kersee, Baron-Cohen, García-Huidobro, Greiner-Petter-Memm, etc.). — This unsigned comment was added by BD2412 (talk • contribs) at 10:14, December 28, 2015.
@BD2412 An analogous slippery-slope argument can and has been made about MWEs and terms formed by conventional morphology. What makes abbreviation morphology different other than a personal reaction?
Most abbreviations are highly context-dependent for their correct-in-context interpretation, eg, DCD, BD, DanP, TDR, SB. What differentiates these, IMO, is that their meaning is much less context dependent. Even I knew 6 of the 13. I might have wanted to know the meaning of the others and would not be able to figure it out for myself very easily. DCDuringTALK16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see no slippery slope fallacy. As I understand the bd2412 argument, a proper name consisting of two separate parts and referring to a human individual is more liable to be deleted; Albert Einstein was deleted. Albert Einstein, out of context, uniquely picks a human individual yet that did not save the entry from deletion (although I see no discussion for the entry). J-Lo, out of context, fairly uniquely picks a human individual yet that might not save the entry from deletion, unless one would claim that the hyphen is much more tightly bonding than the space in Albert Einstein. But if hyphen were accepted as tightly bonding for the purpose of "separate components", we might need to keep Johnson-Ferguson, etc. From what I remember, some editors wanted hyphen to be treated as tightly bonding, but there is no established consensus either way, AFAIK, and some hyphenated compounds were deleted, AFAIK. On another note, "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic" clearly applies to Albert Einstein but less clearly applies to J-Lo, not because of the hyphen, but because of "Lo" per se being no surname but an abbrev of a surname. But editors could use their policy-granted discretion and vote J-Lo out of wikt, noting that (a) hyphen is not tightly bonding and (b) "Lo" is close enough to being a surname. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I often don't read the provisions of pages like CFI very carefully myself, but usually I am called out for it. This time the tables are turned. Here is the most germane passage from CFI:
No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic.
In "J-Lo", J is almost like the given name, and Lo is almost like the family name. I say almost, since they are abbrevs of these. Thus, the quoted regulation seems to almost apply, with emphasis on almost. And I emphasized the policy-granted discretion. So we have a specific regulation that almost applies, and we have a generic regulation that grants a discretion; it is the combination of the two that yields a possible delete vote. But I am repeating myself. Maybe you should read the above posts again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
That would be a self-inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, hence unconstitutional. I was principally responding to BD, who did seem to ignore the exact wording of the text he invoked, and to TDR.
DanP's argument hinges on these "almost"s. I find the near-equation in a dictionary of "J" and "Jennifer" preposterous on its face. (Is & "almost" the same as and?) It may well be that the Vote on which the section of CFI was modified was badly drafted, but those words seem to be the applicable ones that we ought live by. As I read the argument all I could really see was a legalistic argument in support of what seems to be an over-arching bias in how we use our discretion: to suit our tastes, not our responsibilities.
Suppose we were to redefine J-Lo (and JLo) as "an abbreviation for a person whose given name begins with the letter J, and whose surname begins with the syllable Lo"? I don't think we're about to add a sense to Lo for eitherLopezorLohan, but obviously it is used to abbreviate "Lo"- surnames. No doubt we could find copious evidence that "J" is used as an abbreviation for given names starting with "J" (see, e.g., JJ Lin, JR Shaw, JD Alexander, etc.). bd2412T13:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
The definition "Jennifer Lopez" has pretty much driven out any other meaning of the combination J + Lo. I suppose that the definition proposed would be formally satisfactory, but it would not serve any users without, at least, an especially clause pointing to Jennifer Lopez. DCDuringTALK14:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
We have, at times, made sure that the special cases are reflected in example quotes. I'm sure it would be trivial to find a quote noting that "Jennifer Lopez" is also known as "J-Lo". bd2412T14:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
For almost any typography of J, L, and O the meaning "Jennifer Lopez" prevents any other definition from gaining traction in general use. Even if one's friend's name were Jean Lomax, using J-Lo to refer to him would have an element of humor in it, IMO. I think the best treatment is one analogous to the use of {{&lit}} for idiomatic MWEs: two separate definitions. At some point in the future, should Wiktionary outlast Jennifer Lopez's reputation, the definition would need the label dated. DCDuringTALK14:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sod knows, I think Dan Polansky's right that these are names of specific entities hence CFI says there's no real rule on these, so it literally is just voting. Also, I'm not convinced any of these are words, so "all words in all languages" may not apply. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
If the only relevant language is that supporting discretion, why are there three bullet items that limit such discretion? I'd have thought that the principal need for discretion was for the names of specific entities other than those for which specific language exists. Please note the wording in the NSE section that precedes the three bullet items:
"However, policies exist for names of certain kinds of entities. In particular:"
Isn't that wording clear enough? This whole discussion seems to me to be an effort to nullify a policy vote because the application to certain entries doesn't suit elitist taste. DCDuringTALK12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Those policies are all exclusionary, e.g.:
No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney.
However right above the clause you mention it states:
Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which.
I might be elitist for feeling that these terms are not worthy of inclusion, but the vagueness of this language does seem to leave a ton of discretion. The spirit of the entire rest of the naming section seems to lean towards genericism, no personal names unless they are generic names, no companies or brands unless they have been genericized. The NSE section is the only one which we might interpret to allow specific, non-generic names. I do agree with you that changing the language of the CFI is not within the scope of this discussion, but I don't think the language is clear on this topic. - TheDaveRoss13:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
A "spiritual" reading should also acknowledge our "All words in all languages" slogan, the inclusionist definition-in-practice of "term" in CFI that permits idioms, symbols, letters, variant typography, and abbreviations of many kinds, and "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."
I am happy to concede WaPo, I was unfamiliar with it but it does seem to have a fair amount of currency, especially on Twitter. The "All Words in All Languages" should probably be restated to "All* Words* in All* Languages*", since four of the five words* used in phrase become very subjective very quickly. In this particular case, I might run across (deprecated template usage)Jennifer Lopez and wish to know what that means, however we have decided that names of specific people are outside of the scope of the work we are trying to do here. I am not sure why (deprecated template usage)J-Lo is excepted from that, since it is a name which refers to a specific person. The morphology is common enough, as you can see by the number of entries at the top of the page. (deprecated template usage)J and (deprecated template usage)Lo are probably even attestable as given names at this point... I am not being obtuse, I understand that there is some difference between (deprecated template usage)Jennifer Lopez and (deprecated template usage)J-Lo, I am merely suggesting that the difference is not sufficient that the second merits inclusion. - TheDaveRoss14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think that in our slogan even in is not used entirely intuitively.
Virtually all abbreviations of proper names have relatively brief definitions: the proper names themselves. This is true whether the named entity is a person, a political party, an airport, a stock ticker symbol, or the name of an organization. We can choose and have chosen to exclude some of these proper names for whatever reason, But, generally, I think the reason is that any material about the referent of the proper name is inherently encyclopedic and unlikely to be satisfactory unless much longer than a dictionary definition. I think the service we perform for users with respect to abbreviations of proper names is to speed them to the relevant encyclopedic material by giving them a canonical name for the referent, possibly even with disambiguation (eg, JFK: president, airport, bridge(s), high schools etc). Here at enwikt we can even provide a hyperlink to the encyclopedic material.
The hyphenated abbreviated-names morphology is by no means universal. Even within the discourse realm in which it is current, it seems only to apply to names of sufficient popularity and suitability. The morphology argument applies just about as well to abbreviations like op. cit., ibid, et al, et al.. DCDuringTALK19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
BD has created a BP discussion about this topic, so we can dig into whether the current wording and interpretation is really what we want it to be. I can't disagree with you about the morphology, this is very grey-area stuff. Concerning listing things with the intention of providing easy access to Wikipedia... that feels like another can of worms entirely. That same justification should apply to all names of famous people in general, etc. - TheDaveRoss19:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fairly meh about most of these, but Delete Posh and Becks since Victoria is called "Posh" and David is called "Becks" outside this compound. (The Cockney rhyming slang looks a bit dodgy too, although admittedly rhyming slang doesn't always delete the rhyming element when it's a proper name) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
