Talk:Git (slang)

Harry Potter

I removed the line about "git" being used in the Harry Potter books and films– It is understood that the author is British, and they say "git". No need to ay it unless you plan on listing every piece of British literature that says "git". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.184.74 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-15 01:02:12

The same argument could probably be made for the white album line. Artw 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The English version is pronounced /gɪt/ Presumably, the US version referring to midgets is pronounced: /dʒɪt/

If this is right (any Southerners out there?), I'd change the first sentence of the article to:

Git (IPA: [ˈgɪt]) is a relatively mild British slang term, used to denote a silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, childish or senile elderly person. It is usually used as an insult, more severe than twit but less severe than a true profanity like wanker or arsehole, and may often be used affectionately between friends. In some southern U.S. states, git (IPA: [ˈdʒɪt]) is a shortened form of midget, used to denote a short person.

- Gobeirne 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Expand, merge or redirect

This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meanings, probable etymology and usage notes of a slang term. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
2. Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A soft-redirect is still the best solution at the moment, given the lack of encyclopedic information available (the bulk of which is essentially "In popular culture" usages). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, that version does not assist our readership in any useful way and is contrary to our editing and content policies. To expand the article, it is best to present the material in our usual way. I have expanded the article further by reference to external encyclopedia and other reliable works. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not being removed because it's a swear word, it's being removed because it's simply a word. If you want to merge the content into other article(s) like British swear words or something, go right ahead, there's no principle that articles or content should be kept if they violate an ISNOT, as this one does. - BigBodBad (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you beleive the article should be deleted please take it to AFD. Please do not waste everybody's time trying to sneakily delete it via blanking. Artw (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse the diatribe but this is a pet peeve of mine so let's clear up the confusion immediately. Turning a page into a redirect is not deletion. Deletion in the narrow and specific way that we use the term here at Wikipedia means that the entire page and the page history is removed from the project. Turning a page into a redirect, even a soft-redirect, leaves the history intact and visible to all editors. Deletion requires special admin tools to carry out and special admin tools to undo. Undoing a decision to redirect is an ordinary-editor action and can be both reviewed by and carried out by any editor at any time. Decisions about whether to delete a page get decided through the AfD process (with some exceptions now) and are overturned via the Deletion Review process - both rather heavy with bureaucratic overhead. Decisions about whether to redirect a page get sorted out via consensus on the respective Talk pages. Except for one quickly reverted PROD tag this page never been proposed for deletion nor am I about to do so now. AfD is not the appropriate forum for a decision about redirecting and the community rightly rejects such requests when they are made. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, for further guidance, please see Page blanking. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Per above, neither is redirecting a page the same as page blanking. Rossami (talk)
    • "Page blanking means editing a page so as to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content.". Your edit to that policy page is also noted. Cute. Don't do that again. Artw (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I call bullshit. Can I ask why the article is such a heap of unencyclopedic shit why it was written in the first place, and why removing the unreferenced and unnecessary crap from it got reverted?- Wolfkeeper 06:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it too difficult for editors to understand the idea that you look up words in dictionaries not encyclopedias?? You know, because.. the dictionaries have all the words, whereas encyclopedias at 'best' can only have nouns and not necessarily all of those. So it's largely a waste of time anyway putting them in the Wikipedia, because most of the words aren't even ever going to be here. Oh but I see you've managed to come up with... uh... nothing that makes it encyclopedic. Still, it's a swear word, that makes it all alright then. Gah!- Wolfkeeper 06:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that can be your AFD argument. Good luck! Artw (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What you're going to edit war back all the unreferenced crap unless the whole article is removed?- Wolfkeeper 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert blanking if I feel it's unwarranted or an attempt at deletion via the back door, yes. Artw (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Me, I'm adding more sources. Between An encyclopedia of swearing: the social history of oaths, profanity, foul language, and ethnic slurs in the English-speaking world and Swearing in English: bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present, we now have enough good material to cover a wide range of bad language. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So you think we're supposed to let you and only you decide what goes in the article based entirely on whether you claim to feel editing is unwarranted? Who died and made you God of the Wiki? None of the rules and policies apply to you or this article, obviously then.- Wolfkeeper 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Are you absolutely that sure of your etymology? I know that your explanation is a common one, but so is "Geat" (a Goth), i.e. a barbaric uncivilised person. 68.99.252.93 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry did that by accident, how do i restore it

92.24.23.91 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

already reverted. No prob. Cheers petiatil ^{»user»speak} 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Git is more than version control

The disambiguation page for Git has been moved and replaced with the page for the source control software, which seems excessive, and comes with a move description suggesting that is actually the primary meaning, which is unlikely given that its part of the English language. I've started a discussion here, it would be good if we could have some people who are not software developers weigh in. Artw (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Origin - wont prove it today as its a new word !

Hypothesis - GIT enters the RECORDED english language in 1946 - one year after WW2. In Russian and Slavic dialects and accents 'hitler' is pronouced 'gitler' to the english ear. There is not an equivalent to the 'h' of the slavic languages in the romance / germanic languages. Additionally the slavic languages have a single hard stress vowel in each word with the remaining vowels understressed and occassionaly only partially vocalised. The 'r' in slavic languages is long and rolled - but this is not how hitler is pronouned in slavic languages ( exceptions abound of course ). Thus the pronunciation is "GIT-luh" and many who hear it would hear "Git" with the second sylabol being missed by the ear and this fits entirely with the meaning of the word. The sound that was heard by fighting men who would have met slavs in combat and during the early occupation was in reference to a "unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.228.52 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Earliest citation in OED is 1939 "1939 T. Burns in Life & Lett. To-day 21 No. 2 89 Get inside, you thievin' little git." Bartash (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

feedback

I like how you have most of it outlined and together, I've been so lost in making mine. I like how you keep it very general and clean. I love your references , which makes it more interesting and not boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkweilbaecher (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)