Talk:Princess (disambiguation)

Princess as a pejorative

Hello, I'm frustrated that this is the second time an edit I made to this page has been identified as vandalism, by an automatic tool, without any discussion, even though I provided ample explanation in my edit summaries. I suspect that the reason for the flag is the fact that I am an unregistered user with a low edit count, editing a high-traffic page. (To be fair, the edit was impulsive and my language thus informal. I am changing it to be more encyclopedic this go-round.)

The edit I made is not only a legitimate use of the word, but in my experience the most common. If I violated some obscure Wikipedia policy, it was not mentioned either time. There is no Wikipedia article on the specific subject, because it's a vocabulary word (there is one for Jewish-American princess), but I have seen other such entries on disambiguation pages. In fact, the Vera Wang one on this page is another example, and much less notable than the version I added.

So I will ask you nicely: before you revert it, would you please read the discussion. If you still believe it's not constructive, would you please explain why you think it is not a legitimate entry?

And by the way, I believe most vandals don't give you the courtesy of an explanation. Is it really so hard to include that in your bot's heuristics? Thanks, LP --175.201.133.250 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it was reverted because you have not provided any reference to what you have said. Please provide a reference to it. I tried to find it in a couple of dictionaries and I could not. If you fail to give the reference, it might get reverted again in 24hours.--[[++@adikka (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akkida, I specifically gave a reference in my both my reason for editing (see here). The same definition is also on Wiktionary (definition five). A similar definition is given on Merriam-Webster. (Keep in mind that standard dictionaries are often behind the time. Merriam-Webster, despite being based in New-England, is missing the New England colloquialisms mad (adj./adv.) and wicked (adv.), both of which are widely used.)

The fact that it is the top usage on Urban Dictionary attests to its cultural significance. An article would be completely justified (I specifically came to Wikipedia to see if it had a general purpose article on Princess_(pejorative), similar to the one on Jewish-American princess that goes beyond the dictionary meaning), and in the meantime, the entry that I added is justified as well.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, if you read the article, explains the differences between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedia entry. There is ample precedent for using a word that describes a type of person, even if it is not a subculture. For example: Rake_(character) has its own article, and Lech, and Golddigger are treated identically to the definition I added.

Regards, --Quintucket (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]