Talk:based
The blackfoot translation of "based" as slang
i'm confused at the lack of sourcing on this; do blackfoot speakers actually use that as slang analogous to the english word, or is this just a calque? Pontaoski (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Two dictionaries I found claim that the translation here is an imperative verb, not an adjective like the English word. GiggyMantis (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- @GKØN440 as the editor who added the translation — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry about this lol, I looked into it and it seems as though this isnt slang necessarily, you can remove... GKON (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Based out of
i am based out of singapore. is this correct usage of the english language to mean i work/live in singapore?
- Yes. It means that your base (either professionally or personally) is in Singapore. Widsith 10:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- "based out of" is used, but ungrammatical (the basing is not "out"), the more correct form is "based in". Robert Ullmann 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ungrammatical? I'm not sure. More colloquial, perhaps. Widsith 10:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have always assumed that "out of" was just a US usage. I have mostly come across it to do with shipping that operate "out of" a certain port. SemperBlotto 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is a general habit in modern English (mostly US?) to say "out of" when we mean "in". For example: "XYZ Corp operates out of Ohio." Somebody with limited English knowledge might reasonably assume that this means XYZ is not in Ohio, but they would be wrong. The meaning seems to be something like: "XYZ is based in place ABC, and thus anything they do in the wider world is coming out of that place", hence they are based "out of" that place. It doesn't really make sense but it's very common. Equinox ◑ 22:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- (If you want to express the "intuitive" sense, you could say: XYZ Corp operates outside of Ohio.) Equinox ◑ 23:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Political sense
Regarding definition 3, I feel like that's a bit too far-fetched. Sure, you could consider one definition of "based" in the memetic sense to mean "displaying extreme right-wing political beliefs" due to its evident origins on 4chan, but I feel like the definition should be more broadly in the direction "(typically of a person) awesome, grandiose". Think of how synonymously it's used with "Chad", and how the usage of "Chad" in such a light doesn't imply a far-right tone. — This unsigned comment was added by 2606:A000:131D:C5B1:3257:44EE:9BBC:E9E5 (talk) at 21:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC).
Discussed at Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/June#based. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
RFV discussion: November–December 2019
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense: "(slang) Displaying extreme right-wing political beliefs." Haven't come across this sense before. Is it valid? --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I could only find one quote which could support this, and it was pretty ambiguous (on citations page). I wonder if the anonymous user who added this saw a typo for "biased" and came to an erroneous conclusion? Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- i can understand why the definition was added and i don't suspect it was a typo, because i've often seen the second slang definition in recent American right-wing informal political discourse (with a positive or neutral connotation, not a negative connotation like the example sentence) in a similar sense as red pilled is used. the question would be if it's distinct enough to be its own sense or perhaps a subsense of the second sense. --Habst (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- 4chan has a slang term based, as in , . It seems to have been derived from . Perhaps a semantic shift (EDIT: or misunderstanding) has taken place due to the nature of the site.
- I don't know if this is the same as sense 2 "not caring what ". —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- just chiming in to say that 'based' is just 4chan slang for anything (someone) agrees with or likes. There's not really a political connotation, since anyone can use it. If I like Wiktionary, I'd say its based. If I didn't, I'd say its unbased or cringe. — This unsigned comment was added by Wikianon9001 (talk • contribs).
- Yeah, I think it's just a general term of approval that happens to be popular in right-leaning communities like 4chan, but doesn't itself mean "right-wing". Examples of people given this moniker are "Based Amy" and "Based Stickman", about whom you can find info online. Equinox ◑ 12:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not just right-wing anymore really. I’ve seen a number of left-wing folks on Reddit (mostly on radical subs) use it unironically. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
RFV-failed. I think it fits as part of the second definition (not caring what others think). Kiwima (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
a Bradfort-based company
The CambridgeGEL, page 1762, mentions a Bradfort-based company --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we have that sense in our entry as well. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
3rd sense
@Ioaxxere As I wrote in the edit summary, those are straight-forward applications of sense 1 or 2. Someone who opposes "liberalism or left-wing values", may refer to likeminded people as "based" ("admirable, praiseworthy"). Or, someone may reject "liberalism or left-wing values" in "based" way ("not caring what others think about one's style"). These citations don't demonstrate a separate sense.__Gamren (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Gamren you should start a RFD instead of unilaterally deleting legitimate senses. Ioaxxere (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere No, this is a RFV issue, not a RFD issue. The sense has failed RFV before, and as I see it the reasons brought up there also apply to the current citations. If you feel something's changed, make a reverse RFV (that is, make a new section on WT:RFVE and request it be recreated). Until then, don't reinstate this content without further discussion. I've protected the page for four days.__Gamren (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The citations were added after the RFV had already closed. The "reasons brought up there" were brought up by people who had never seen the quotes to which you are applying them to. The participants were discussing a 1989 quote which clearly didn't support the sense. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ioaxxere No, this is a RFV issue, not a RFD issue. The sense has failed RFV before, and as I see it the reasons brought up there also apply to the current citations. If you feel something's changed, make a reverse RFV (that is, make a new section on WT:RFVE and request it be recreated). Until then, don't reinstate this content without further discussion. I've protected the page for four days.__Gamren (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It might be worth pointing out that this term is only used in its political sense (so far as I know) by conservatives, unlike woke for example which is used by both supporters and opponents of the ideology. —Soap— 20:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
RFV discussion: March 2023
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense of "true, accurate, factual". The sense discussed at #Restore_deleted_sense_at_based was recently moved to a different etymology section, together with a sense I'm unfamiliar with, "true, accurate, factual". Does that sense exist? Finding that out is part of determining how likely it is that "admirable (used by Lil B)" and "admirable (used by right-wingers)" have different etymologies; at first blush I see no reason to think they have different etymologies, but if the bridging sense is real and/or we have references asserting the new etymology, it could be right. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I replaced the definition with an interjection sense Ioaxxere (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Striking this as resolved, since the sense has been removed and the new sense is defined differently and under a different POS than the RFV'd sense. (Whether it's really an interjection or just the same old adjective used interjectionally as with "correct!" "right!" "true!" "well-said!" "excellent!" "well argued!" etc is probably more a question for RFD.) - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
RFV discussion: February–April 2023
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Moved from RFD.Gamren (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
(Continued from Talk:based#3rd sense)
User:Gamren has deleted a sense with three citations out of procedure (diff) and locked the page after I reverted it. While I believe this user acted out of line, I'm willing to start a discussion and come to a consensus. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep (obviously) for the reason that sense 2 doesn't mention the right-wing connotations of the term. While the senses could be merged, I believe there is a difference in usage (the now-deleted usage example was: "My last account got banned for being too based."). Ioaxxere (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- That usex looks like it should be "biased". DonnanZ (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a typo - see for lots of legitimate use. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should restore your entry and if necessary immediately RFV it. This seems like an out-of-process deletion to me, as you added new cites when you restored it - if you hadn't then it would be a different matter but you did. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't add any new cites to the entry. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, WordyandNerdy added the quotes last year. I got the wrong end of the stick, as the previously RFVed sense at Talk:based was similar to the one deleted by User:Gamren but not the same. In which case I'd still say the deletion was out-of-process and vote Keep/Undelete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't add any new cites to the entry. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You can't always take what you read as gospel. I found a piece of text, "the first two miles of the line from Moll to Turnout" in a 1946 magazine. Turnout was a misprint of Turnhout and Moll is apparently a variant of Mol. DonnanZ (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's widely used. Clearly not a typo. Theknightwho (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should restore your entry and if necessary immediately RFV it. This seems like an out-of-process deletion to me, as you added new cites when you restored it - if you hadn't then it would be a different matter but you did. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a typo - see for lots of legitimate use. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- That usex looks like it should be "biased". DonnanZ (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- As I told you, this is a RFV issue. RFD is only for non-attestation reasons.__Gamren (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Gamren Could you please explain why you edit warred over deleting this out of process? Theknightwho (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- No.__Gamren (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Gamren Then consider this a formal warning not to do that again. Theknightwho (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- He hasn't learnt much from the desysopping vote. DonnanZ (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Donnanz Do you have an actual issue with me warning over edit warring, or is this just more spiteful sniping? Theknightwho (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Gamren has been an admin since 9 December 2016, far longer than yourself. I think seniority counts. DonnanZ (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Donnanz That actually makes it worse, because they should know better. I also gave them a chance to explain their actions, and they refused. You might think certain people should be above the rules, but that isn’t how it works. Sorry. Theknightwho (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't explain why you're allowed to wage war and nobody else is. No further comment. Don't bother to reply. DonnanZ (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Donnanz Your reply doesn't even make sense. Drop the stick. Theknightwho (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- All things considered, the "formal warning" to Gamren was hardly appropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't explain why you're allowed to wage war and nobody else is. No further comment. Don't bother to reply. DonnanZ (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Donnanz That actually makes it worse, because they should know better. I also gave them a chance to explain their actions, and they refused. You might think certain people should be above the rules, but that isn’t how it works. Sorry. Theknightwho (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Gamren has been an admin since 9 December 2016, far longer than yourself. I think seniority counts. DonnanZ (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Donnanz Do you have an actual issue with me warning over edit warring, or is this just more spiteful sniping? Theknightwho (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- No.__Gamren (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The word already had a political sense by Nov 2016 as I remember hearing it during the presidential election. At first I thought it was a variant on best, and it definitely was used in a positive sense by supporters of Trump. The political sense might even be older than the neutral sense, but 4chan posts aren't usually archived anywhere, so perhaps we can't be sure. —Soap— 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Gamren Could you please explain why you edit warred over deleting this out of process? Theknightwho (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t see this as a distinct sense. What somebody is admirable and praiseworthy for, of course differs by ideological point of view. If one says “My last account got banned for being too based.” this means that platform only support things that are degenerate or otherwise exitiable rather than praiseworthy, or disallows for things to go too much out of the ordinary in either direction. As a compromise, it can be made a subsense to make the reader aware of such specific contexts. Fay Freak (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, this feels like one of those cases (like groomer, discussed above) which are borderline between being a distinct sense or just the other sense plus context. Does anyone care to show other terms being used similarly, e.g. someone saying their account was banned for being too epic, which would be suggestive of it being a general sense + context? Conversely, is there evidence the political sense is older, which would jiffy it in? I do think it merits at least a usage note, if we don't keep a subsense. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was recently given a completely different etymology from Lil B's based; see #based below (concerning another sense added at the same time) for more. - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm closing this, there are three citations and no consensus to delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)