Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:everypony. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:everypony, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:everypony in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:everypony you have here. The definition of the word Talk:everypony will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:everypony, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
These are terms which are exclusively used within a niche group, thus they should live in an appendix and not in NS:0. - TheDaveRoss12:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Send to RFV to determine if WT:FICTION is satisfied (there have to be at least “three citations in separate works which are independent of reference to universe”). — Sgconlaw (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw Based on what I've seen and the above links I've sent, that clause only applies to "Terms originating in fictional universes". Unless the terms listed were created by the franchise itself, the clause does not apply. Edit: Yeah, the vote literally was about adding this use-case to the official rules, but it failed 1-13-6. AG202 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ahh yes, I agree. I personally don't know if they are, based on the terms themselves and the quotes, it seemed to me that they aren't, but someone more familiar could answer. AG202 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would likely advocate for large swaths of that category to move to appendixes. The term brony has entered the vernacular, it is used with some frequency outside of the fan-group. The terms used exclusively within the fan-group are not in the vernacular. CFI is excessively permissive about many things, this being one of them. How small a fan-group is worth catering to? As long as three people are willing to form a usenet group we are happy to include whatever jargon they see fit to create? Seems counter-productive. Even though UrbanDictionary has a lot of good definitions for slang terms, it is useless as a dictionary because there are millions of additional spurious definitions for nonce words, I'd rather this dictionary keep from that path. - TheDaveRoss12:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TheDaveRoss "As long as three people are willing to form a usenet group we are happy to include whatever jargon they see fit to create? Seems counter-productive." This is exactly what I've argued against in multiple discussions, and the consensus here is to keep terms like that. See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/February#Increasing_the_number_of_citations_required_for_Usenet_and_updating_CFI for a prime example of that discussion. I'd have hoped that you would've participated in those discussions seeing how you feel about them now as it would've been helpful to push more for updating CFI, but alas, this is what we have now. AG202 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to tag me next time, but I can't pretend I actually get a chance to read and contribute to every discussion that happens on Wiktionary. - TheDaveRoss13:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The problem with Urban Dictionary is that it primarily consists of joke entries that no one will ever use. There's a huge difference between terms used within certain communities, and nonsense like "mississippi hot pocket" (defined as "when a guy that is chewing tobacco, spits it into a womans vagina for the purpose of lubricant, and then fucks her"). Arbitrarily restricting our coverage to eliminate fandom slang doesn't benefit anyone, and it only serves to make us look stuffy and old-fashioned. Wiktionary isn't going to run out of room anytime soon. Binarystep (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
If the terms are not purely in-universe (and this is something I have no idea about), then I believe our practice is to allow them to be included as main entries provided they pass the standard verifiability rules (for example, like Trekkie). — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
That's correct. The discussion above is about whether we should eliminate fandom-exclusive terms entirely or relegate them to an appendix, effectively giving them the same treatment as fictional words that are only used in-universe. Binarystep (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I would argue that this should be speedily closed. These nominations are based on an outdated understanding of CFI. An attempt to ban terms referencing fictional entities was voted down almost unanimously (16-1) last year. Fandom slang has arguably always fallen under the umbrella of "all words in all languages." But it's now unambiguously covered by policy. It's tiring having to re-litigate this every time someone wants to grind their deletionist axe.
Fandom slang doesn't "originate in a fictional universe" – i.e. it isn't derived from a specific work of fiction – but rather is created by the communities of fans that frequently arise around works of fiction. It is no different than the specialized jargon that emerges within other "niche" communities like programming, crafting, etc. CFI has never actually explicitly disallowed terms referencing fictional entities. If it did, we wouldn't have entries for Holmesian, Scroogelike, Gulliverian, etc. This was an interpretation borne of the vaguely-worded part of WT:FICTION that attempted to draw a distinction between A) terms derived from a work of fiction that have attained idiomatic or generic use and B) terms used exclusively in a work of fiction or in discussions of said work of fiction. For example, Wookiee used idiomatically to mean a hairy person meets CFI, but any other random Star Wars species wouldn't. Warp speed has become a generic sci-fi term used outside Star Trek. Contrast this to the litany of treknobabble that will never be used outside media in the Trek franchise or discussions of Star Trek.
The requirement that cites be "independent of reference to universe" was never meant to preclude the inclusion of terms referring to fictional entities. It was meant to stipulate that citations not be derived from source works (e.g. the Star Wars films), derivative works (guidebooks, reviews, etc.), or non-idiomatic references. "He's a real Han Solo" (i.e., "man of action") in a romance novel would pass CFI. Sure, it's referencing a fictional character, but that's not an issue. One cannot use Holmesian without reference to Sherlock Holmes. Language doesn't exist in a vacuum. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did not nominate this because it is related to a fictional universe, you will note that the nomination does not mention that as the rationale for deletion. The problem is that these terms are used exclusively by a very small group of people, based on the quotes provided it is used exclusively within a single Usenet fan group. There exists some line between being a term in English, and being a term that is not meant to be understood outside of a particular narrow context. I believe these terms are the latter, and thus should be in an appendix at best. Many of the keep votes address the fictional universes criteria, which has nothing to do with these, they are from fandom not from the subject of the fandom. These are more akin to "ship" names in fanfiction e.g. "Drarry" (apparently for a relationship between Draco Malfoy and Harry Potter). I don't think that ought to be included in Wiktionary, even though there are probably a bunch of instances of the term being used in Harry Potter fanfiction and discussion groups. - TheDaveRoss12:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TheDaveRoss: I see where you're coming from, but what sort of objective criteria should we use to determine whether a particular term is only "used exclusively by a very small group of people"? Can you suggest any? Otherwise, there will be endless argument about this point. Conversely, if it is difficult to lay down objective criteria, we may just have to stick to our usual CFI rules. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Binarystep, Sgconlaw: The CFI is a useful method of recording the lines in the sand we have drawn around inclusion, but those lines are constantly changing so the fact that something is only part of the story. If the CFI excludes something which should be included, we should change the CFI. If the CFI includes something which should be excluded, we should change the CFI. I would suggest that if the CFI is fine with "everypony" (which I agree it likely is) then the CFI is overly permissive in this area.
As far as what is the line, I am not sure. A single Usenet group is too niche in my opinion, the rhyming slang of a fairly significant geographic region which has existed for more than a century is probably broad enough (although I would be happy to hear arguments about shifting rhyming slang to an appendix, if only to make the more common use-case for such content more user friendly). Where exactly the line should be is likely impossible to nail down, it is probably more like SOP and pornography, you know it when you see it, and reasonable people will disagree. - TheDaveRoss12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@TheDaveRoss: hmmm. If it's so difficult to objectively decide if a term is "too niche", I think it's going to be hard to adopt such a rule in CFI. Personally, I think "we'll know it when we see it" will be too imprecise to be workable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why should attestable terms be removed simply because they're not used by a large number of people? There's no harm in including obscure words, but not including them has the tangible effect of making it harder for people to find reliable info about them, while also rendering our "all words in all languages" slogan meaningless. Jargon is a valid part of language, and we would be doing ourselves a disservice by pretending otherwise. Binarystep (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Strongly agree with this. Rude, offensive and cringe-worthy terms do seem to be held to a higher standard on Wiktionary sometimes, and it's nice to see some push-back against that. Theknightwho (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Here's where I would disagree. As I have expressed elsewhere, for a term which is offensive to some class or classes of persons I would favour a stricter rule requiring the editor wishing to create an entry to also add quotations showing it is "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" (WT:ATTEST) within, say, two weeks of when the entry is created, otherwise the entry may be speedily deleted (without prejudice to re-creation if the criteria are satisfied). I feel this would discourage people from the fly-by creation of offensive terms, and save all the time spent in discussing and verifying these terms at RFD and RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Based on current CFI, keep. A quick google and check of twitter find everypony to be used by MLP fans wherever they congregate; the usenet group may be one of the few "durable" places it's used (or not; I see a few MLP-related books using it), but while I think we should be strict about requiring durable cites to demonstrate terms exist, we can be more open to looking at non-durable stuff for other purposes, like to check how terms are pronounced or if they're actually dated or limited to one dialect (or usenet group) vs still current, etc. There are terms used by so small a set of people that I question their usefulness to the dictionary, like obscure slurs used three times in some other usenet group, but ... I dunno, these don't feel like a problem. The chemical sense of transphobia is used by a very small number of chemists, a "niche" group, and it's unlikely to be understood outside that particular narrow context... and yet, probably adding {{lb|en|rare}} to the (chemistry) label is as far as we should go. I also don't think it can be said that a term like everypony "is not meant to be understood outside of a particular narrow context"; it's remarkably transparent. I would be OK with deleting names for real or fictional 'ships (Drarry, etc), and celebrity nicknames (K-Rod, etc), but those are a separate beast: we already apply different scrutiny to 'non-natural' names (we don't include most company names, for example). - -sche(discuss)02:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure where I stand on this, but I see Dave's point. This reminds me of a practice of themed restaurants to carry their theme into mundane details like restroom signs. For instance, a Western-themed restaurant might have a "cowboys" and a "cowgirls" room. Then there's the insider jargon that's peculiar to specific businesses and organizations (as epitomized by "flair" in Office Space). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: If you go to your local bar/pub and announce that you are interested in buying "everypony a drink" people may get what you are offering, but they are likely to think you are having a stroke. If you write a chemistry paper for publication and it includes that rare sense of "transphobia" a reasonable reader may have to look up the meaning based on the context, but they will also assume you have chosen the term deliberately. All of scientific literature is one context, and a usenet group is the other context, there is no real comparison. - TheDaveRoss12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
And if I described something as selcouth, few people would know what I meant. When did we agree to only include terms the general public is familiar with? More to the point, your analogy is flawed. A random bartender isn't likely to know what everypony means, but the term would be easily understood in fandom spaces. In that regard, it's no different than any other community-specific term. Binarystep (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Rarity of use is not the operative metric here, it is scope of use. I think there is a place for words which are essentially never used (e.g. thunderwords). - TheDaveRoss12:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep, as this obviously passes CFI. If there is a perceived issue with WT:CFI, the complaining parties are free to suggest an amendment. RFD discussions should only serve to interpret our guidelines, not to change or break them. As in #Darky Cuntinent, I maintain that it should not even be allowed to overturn binding, voted-on policy (in this case WT:CFI) with an RFD discussion. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha: I think of RFV/RFD as courts of law, while precedent is very important, sometimes test cases are needed to discover if the community still feels the same way about a particular matter, or if there is some nuance which has not been reasonably addressed. In this case the nuance (from my perspective) is "how large a group of 'speakers' need to be using a term before we consider it valid for an entry in a main-dictionary entry?" I am suggesting that the usage of everypony and others are used by too narrow a group, others disagree. The CFI is fully permissive on this, as long as three individuals (as far as we can tell) have written a word down with a common meaning over more than one year, the CFI is fine. If a group of a few who play Dungeons and Dragons together invent some monster for their own game, and they then include references to it in Twitter posts over the course of their campaign, the CFI would likely be OK with including that monster's name. I have to imagine that everyone agrees that is too permissive. Beyond that it is all a matter of degrees, I don't think we have a line and I don't know how to define one. - TheDaveRoss12:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The D&D example you gave wouldn't be allowed under current CFI, per WT:FICTION. In order for fictional characters to be included, they have to be referenced outside the context of the work they originate in. Binarystep (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
That would be true if the creators of D&D invented the term, but if it was invented by the people playing the game I don't know that it would fall under FICTION. Certainly if you changed the term from a monster to a type of experience (anything remotely meta to the game) the argument would clearly not be covered by FICTION. - TheDaveRoss12:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the canonicity of a subject has any bearing on whether WT:FICTION forbids it. An unofficial D&D monster would likely get the same treatment as an individual Fakémon or a Steven Universe OC. Binarystep (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'd argue that specific fanworks count as fictional universes for the purposes of WT:FICTION. It makes sense to allow slang like everypony and gemsona, but not names of characters created by a particular fandom, as in the D&D example above. Binarystep (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
