Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:creeper. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:creeper, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:creeper in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:creeper you have here. The definition of the word Talk:creeper will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:creeper, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Irish slang
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
“I think I must have a bit of the kleptos in me; I’d rob anything,” says Ronny (...) Ronny spoke to The Irish Times last week at a facility for homeless, drug addicted and alcoholic men. He says he needs to keep stealing to feed his drug habit. He describes himself as “a creeper as well as a burglar”.
I’m rather disappointed that we never even got as much as a response even though three people including another admin said that it should be sent to RFV, one even before the speedy deletion was done, so the discussion shouldn’t have been closed. And so, I object to the closure per the RFD guidelines and will re-add the definition later as clear discussion has taken place, and request permission once again to move it to RFV. @FytchaAG202 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is not a candidate for RFV because by definition it does not meet CFI, whether it has three uses or three million uses. We do not include fictional universe things defined only with reference to their original context. See Darth Vader for a definition of something that has escaped its fictional origin to merit inclusion. Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vox Sciurorum: I don't understand. If someone managed to dig up three quotes along the lines of "That bomb blew up like a creeper!" (independent of Minecraft), that surely would attest this sense per WT:FICTION, no? WT:FICTION doesn't prohibit similes and it doesn't require a figurative meaning as Darth Vader has it. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pikachu with its current definition should be deleted as not meeting CFI. Jigglypuff is defined by its extra-universe meaning with reference to the original definition, like my Darth Vader example. Creeper is not. If you're so confident that there is a real world meaning then add some citations and change the definition to match them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pikachu has already passed RFD for meeting CFI. Consensus was reached. Whether or not you personally believe that it should be deleted, there was consensus to keep it. And no need to be snarky, I already stated that I would look for citations in the RFV discussion and have been looking for them. And that’s the whole purpose of RFV, to find quotes, and if there aren’t any, then it’ll be deleted after a month. AG202 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
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.
Why bother really? I don't see how this can be cited independent of reference to the game universe, since even the definition mentions Minecraft! Equinox◑17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
You could've at least had this discussion first. See also: Pikachu, Scooby-Doo, which unsurprisingly you nominated for deletion yourself, Jigglypuff, Count Dracula, and more in Category:en:Fictional characters. Regardless of how you personally feel about these entries, consensus and CFI point towards finding figurative usages before deleting the entry, so you really should not have speedily deleted it, especially considering that you've participated in these discussions before. Let alone the fact that someone else already suggested that it was an RFV issue before you speedily deleted it, and then you then chose to ignore repeated suggestions to move it to RFV. That overall bothered me. In terms of the RFV though, @WordyAndNerdy I know you mentioned cites for it specifically in the RFD discussion, and I can look for some as well later. AG202 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I remember stating that I'd seen this used figuratively in the wild. I don't remember stating that I'd already found CFI-compliant cites for it. I would've added them to the citations page if I had. I haven't had much luck with this even using precise search terms. "Like a creeper" mostly nets comparisons to clinging plants and creepy/stalkerish people. "Creeper" + "blow up" returns equal parts Minecraft game guides and science-fiction novels where various monsters called "creepers" are destroyed with explosives. I encountered the same signal-to-noise problem when I tried to attest figurative usage of Chewie. The cites are out there but there's only so many times I want Google to force me to identify boats and traffic lights because it thinks using advanced search functions means you're a bot. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Those votes have every appearance of being a unilaterally-implemented punitive roadblock thrown up when you were called out for unilaterally closing multiple RfV nominations as delete despite their promise of being attestible through online sources. I'm not playing along with this pointless game. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The creation of a separate voting venue where source websites and associated constraints can be proposed and voted on within a 2-week period. This includes negative proposals, i.e. votes to bar a website or a certain kind of website from being used as a cite in the future.
The additional constraints can include the weight of a cite from this source (durably archived sources have weight 1, i.e. they count as one each towards the three-citation rule), whether an RFV discussion is necessary to discuss whether the specific citations are permissible, which time frame the citations may be from, whether the content (in the case of social media networks) has to come from specific contributors (e.g. government institutions) etc.
The creation of a list of these decisions, linked to at the end of "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks." in WT:CFI (influenced by w:WP:RSPSS).
I thought that the CFI update would lead to a big communal discussion on which online sources can be considered fit-for-purpose and that further discussions would be opened as needed. That never materialized. So any forward momentum on this is a positive in my book. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The vote has ended with no consensus. It's a disappointing outcome; the vote had some procedural issues, caused mainly by the fact that the cites are all in simile form (arguably we shouldn't have ever had sense 17.1 at all, because all words take on a generalised meaning in that way when used in a simile), plus there were a few opposers who had problems with the very idea of the vote.
It is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why, one, the sense "something that explodes ..." was created and, two, why all the citations along the lines of "like a creeper" were assigned to that sense. The distinction between similes and figurative uses is obviously lexicographically relevant. The fact that there is such a deep-running misunderstanding on this website about what lexical items even are and about what senses are (diff) really takes the joy out of it for me. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Imho, with these kind of procedural issues and the fact that it ended in no consensus, the sense at 17 should be re-added, and a re-vote (not at the same venue!) should be in order. However, I'm not an admin, obviously, so I'm not going to implement that myself, but that's just how I feel. AG202 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The sources are no good under current rules. Therefore, the entry should be deleted under current rules. If you want a different result for this kind of entry get the rules changed. If you can't get the rules changed, then operate within the rules. DCDuring (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The vote was supposed to be about the sources in question. However as @This, that and the other mentioned, the vote had multiple procedural issues, and so, in my opinion, it should be redone. This entry can definitely exist under the current rules, see: melanoheliophobia which passed. This would not require a change of the rules, either. AG202 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Talk:creeper