Jump to content

Talk:Muggeseggele

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability?

[edit]

Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, how is this entry notable? Notability for an entry on a word or expression depends on establishing the real-world significance of that expression, not just describing its etymology. If I go through this article paragraph by paragraph, here's what we have:

  • Lede: A dictionary definition, and an unsourced claim about how iconic and popular the expression is. The latter might be evidence of notability if it were backed up in any way, but it is neither sourced nor elaborated upon in the rest of the article.
  • Etymology, paragraph 1: Just etymology. Doesn't contribute to notability; all words and expressions have etymology.
  • Etymology, paragraph 2: Average length of fly penises. Actually not even really germane to this article (which is about an expression, not about actual fly penises), although if it is germane then it's just more of the definition, not something contributing to notability.
  • Etymology, paragraph 3: Discussion of how the word is a rare example of a certain kind of swearing. This kind of contributes to notability, although really what is suggests is this would be more appropriate as a single point in an article about German profanity (no such article exists yet, although similar articles for other languages do; it would be straightforward to make a stub) rather than as a stand-alone article. On a side note, the point about Alan Dundes is totally lost on most readers, because it does not bother to say what claim is being contradicted.
  • Etymology, paragraph 4: mention that people in some place know what this word is. Not really a strong argument for notability. For comparison: in English, we have people who have used "potato" as an example of something sociocultural, but we don't have an article Potato (word).
  • Paragraph on English equivalent: just dictionary stuff

In short, I am not really convinced that this is a notable topic. I would suggest merging to an article on German profanity, but none exists right now. The best alternative might be to create a stub out of the pages in Category:German profanity and include this. Of course, merging to aedeagus could be another option.

For what it's worth, the writing of the article also has some issues; there are some very wordy places where wordiness was clearly used to pad the character count to get it past the 1500 characters needed for DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable topic and it cannot be merged with German profanity, as it is a dialect (swabian) expression. It would not be understood in Hamburg, but as said in some partsof asia under swabian control ;) I understood you doubt the sourcing of notability. Please not that there is a multitude of sources given for that. I elaborated a little more on Lindner. Its an serious entrepreneur, speaker of VDMA and him being quoted with the expression in Süddeutsche Zeitung alone renders notability out of question. Serten (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serten: I accept that there may be issues with merging this with other German expressions (although whether or not a Swabian expression should go in an article about German is a matter for debate; Swabian and standard German are not mutually intelligible, but they are still part of High German--it's just a matter of what level of granularity you choose to look at). But just saying "it is a notable topic" does not make it notable. I gave multiple reasons above why I do not think the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Do you have a substantive explanation for why you think the article, or substantive responses to my points? Or are you just going to say "it is notable"?
Also, I did not ask for more elaboration about who Lindner is--in fact, I said in my message above that that paragraph was already too wordy. The fact that a famous person mentioned this word does not immediately make it notable. Bill Clinton, who is more famous, made a more famous statement about the word "is" once, but we don't have an article about that word either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be merged with German profanity. It might be moved to gnat's cock or gnat's dick, if someone does a bit of research on these two lemmas. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to say why the article shouldn't be merged, instead of just saying so as if it's a fact? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone: note that another place this content could be merged to is Swabian German. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example for Swabian profanity. There are four sources for notability in the lede. I elaborated on the content of those sources a wee bit just to show that Muggeseggele is a notable example and has iconic value.
  1. Thats the title. The etymology is special and insofar noteable
  2. This is about a measurement unit. Insofar actual measurements by serious scientists ARE noteable
  3. Dundes and so on was clarified.
  4. Etymology, paragraph 4: mention that people in some place know what this word is. Not really a strong argument for notability. The quote is from the CEO of the world market leader of textile needles and Süddeutsche is a German bavarian newspaper. To get quoted there shows the iconic status and that is highly noteable.
  5. Couch Potato is a redirect, I would assume it as being noteable for itself, since its being used in German as well. de:Couch-Potato There's no strings upon this article of mine, it was always Muggeseggele from the start - would u suggest to merge Wooden Heart into Elvis Presley just to have one article less? Serten (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result - The article is noteable, a merger is neither useful nor founded. The peculiarities of the topic) and the status as a popular icon is being described and sourced. PLease erase the merge request on short notice. Serten (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions are an improvement, but I still do not believe my concerns have been addressed. Regarding your first point, etymology is not inherently notable just because it's etymology; please review Wikipedia's policy on notability and regarding etymology.
Regarding your second point: based on my understanding of the article as it is written, a muggeseggele is not a measurement unit, it's just a figure of speech. The article leads me to believe that no one actually measures things with this unit (i.e., no one says "this is four muggeseggeles long). Figures of speech belong in a dictionary, not Wikipedia, unless they can be shown to be notable by means of substantial coverage (not just mention) in multiple reliable sources.
Regarding Dundes: this has no bearing on the notability issue, I was just making a suggestion about how to improve poor writing. I am glad you have improved this, but as I said above it's a "side note" and does not solve the main problem.
Regarding the quote about people who recognize this phrase: the fact that the quote comes from a famous person does not make the word inherently notable. Again, please review the guidelines on notability. As I mentioned above, the word "potato" has been used by two famous performers to describe a difference in English dialects, but that does not make the word "potato" notable (as opposed to the objects called potatoes).
Finally, as a participant in this discussion, you are in no position to unilaterally decide the "result" of the discussion. I will file for a third opinion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a figure of speech measurement unit, right. However it can be actually measured and has been, to the amusement and interest of various sources. Lets compare it to IP over Avian Carriers - its a parody, but ist has been technically done. Serten (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this from WP:3O and posted it at AfD. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ell was originally a cubit, later replaced by the cloth-ell or 'double ell'.

This article is truely written in the style of an encyclopedia and does not fit into a dictionary at all. The closest English term is "gnat's cock" or a "gnat's dick". Although it is possible to measure the diameter of this organ of a gnat, nobody would assume that this term is used as a precise dimension such as a millimetre. However, some Suebians believe, that a previously vague unit equals now the average length of 0.22 millimetres. If one follows your request for deletion, you would need to delete also ell and Foot (unit). Could it be that the slightly embarrasing function of this body part is the real reason for requesting its deletion? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we erase the merger request? Serten (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this stand-alone article is best kept separate from anything else. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

scrotum or penis

[edit]

See the german article de:Muggeseggele. It CLEARLY states de:Hodensack, which translated to english is en:Scrotum. --Agatha Bauer (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Wrong track, see gauger. Serten (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First: I am german and i live in that area. Not even in the reference i can find that it is a aedeagus or a penis. And anyway: de:Muggeseggele is a "cubic" measurement, not a "length" measurement. --Agatha Bauer (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also the schwaebische dictionary which says first "Geschlechtsteil" (en:Sex organ) but later is more specific calling it a "Mückensäckchen". And a "säckchen" is the en:Diminutive of de:Sack, which is translated to english en:bag. So this en:bag is a en:Scrotum, not the penis !!! --Agatha Bauer (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, the people in Swabia know that the fly does not really have a en:Scrotum like the humans have, that is the "ironic/funny" part of the expression. --Agatha Bauer (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gauger is the vailid source here and clearly states its about the penis. Please undoi your revert. Serten (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing with penis/scrotum/fly/mosquito and unit is a joke (in the sense of the word) which is not - voluntarily or unvoluntarily - understood by the author (this Link says (1) Muggaseggl (NOT Muggeseggele) and (2) Qualitätstechnik (quality technology) - get it? gnat's dick = quality technology. This is BRUHAHA-humor - or "overinterpretation". M. is used for length, M. is used for salt (weight), it is used for Volume and M. is used for time. A hell of a unit... It means "a weeeee bit", it sounds funny, it alludes to sex, its etymology is shady and its entomology doubtful - nothing less, nothing more. GEEZERnil nisi bene 14:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As said, one should try to read and understand Gauger - which is quit clear about the etymology. It clearly states that muggeseggele is the equivalent of a penis. Please undo your revert and ignor POV / OR. Btw Geezers translation a wee bit is a quite suitable one, since that indicates and signifies a scottish background - similar as Muggeseggele is an indicator of adeherence or origin to a regional (Swabian) background. Serten (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in detail (elswhere) that what was named and measured and what is shown in the "data sheet is not the same thing. It is (on one side) hard scientific evidence combined with "metaphoric term" - like the guy who calculated the speed of Santa Claus in a quasi scientific paper. It is a scientific joke ment to amuse but not ment to be taken literally. The same fith the fly/mosquito/scrotum/penis. It - does - not - matter. GEEZERnil nisi bene 08:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a article about de:Hans-Martin Gauger in the german wikipedia. Basically he was a Professor in Linguistics. What he writes in his book (p. 36) is more confusing than enlightning. He tracks the word "Sack" from the Latin Word "saccus" to the Greek Word "sákkos" to the Assyric Word "šakku". When he links to the word "penis", he says himself that the link is "strange" (german "seltsam"). But to be honest i don't see a valid link between "seggele" and "penis" in his analysis. --Agatha Bauer (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the details! GEEZERnil nisi bene 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bavarians call foot what Prussians call leg and this is rather confusing indeed. It might well be, that the Suabians used the word Muggaseggle before they used microscopes, and they just didn't know that a fly has no scrotum. If they wanted to refer explcitely to the scrotum they could have called it Muggabeitele similar to Bocksbeutel. Words like um Mückenpimmelsbreite show that the meaning is not literal at all. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a Discussion in the German Wikipedia about that. There it was said that Mückenpimmelsbreite is Plattdeutsch and means "less than the width of a hair". --Agatha Bauer (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lede needs improvement

[edit]

A naive reader stumbling on this article struggles to quickly comprehend the lede. Is this about some fictional trivia? In what senses is this article about something real? Improving the lede would not be easy -- to quickly cue browsers that this is a serious article about something real, but that is basically a long-established local cultural joke...-71.174.175.150 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the changes you made on the same day as your comment just above to "help cue reader to humorous context" handle that nicely. Currently the lede begins (I've bolded your additions):
A Muggeseggele or Muckenseckel is a humorous Alemannic German idiom used in Swabia to designate a nonspecific very small length...
I'd say you've provided cue enough. --Thnidu (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muggeseggele. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard German?

[edit]

"the standard German Säckel, meaning little sack". "Säckel" is not the standard german word for a little sack, this would be "Säckchen". "Säckel" is used in southern german dialects. I'm from Berlin and I have never heard the word "Säckel" here. ;) 62.199.49.10 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Text and references copied from List of humorous units of measurement to Muggeseggele, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muggeseggele&oldid=1209238050"