Talk:Pud

Untitled

An editor wants to include the following "dick-def" [wink] in the dab Pud:

A vulgarism for male genitalia, derived from pudendum.

But Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is quite clear:

Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, Wiktionary

The editor argues that Dick is a precedent for this, but provisions like the MoS are the means of sweeping away the chaotic practice of relying on 600,000 contradictory collections of supposed micro-precedents.

In fact, the former Dick's wretched mess of 10 bullet points with 26 lks, of which 5, namely

are articles discussing in whole or part topics responsive to users' attempts to find an encyclopedia article on something to which the single word "dick" can apply. Which is to say, choosing ~~the current~~ that incarnation of Dick as a source of precedent seems like nothing so much as a sign of the lack of persuasive evidence of the still unstated principle supposedly sanctifying the edit.

In any case, the MoS is clear in opposing, on Dab pages, dict-defs or anything else (e.g., the 25 possibly entertaining words on a comic strip and a film relating to detectives), that doesn't serve the Dab-purpose of getting users to the specific articles "that might otherwise share the ... title" of the Dab page.

Further arguments to the contrary should instead be directed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) -- but only after consulting the corresponding page of guidelines.

--Jerzy·t 2005 July 6 07:09 & 2005 July 6 09:06 (UTC)

How about cock then? I believe it's entirely possible someone could look up "pud" to see what Wikipedia has to say about the slang term, and I also believe it's important to distinguish two comic characters from their very different meaning. Jokestress 6 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Genital sense for Pud?

The idea of a dab entry for "Pud" as referring to genitalia is not contrary to the MoS if

it has a terse form like

Vulva

or

Penis, and

the meaning is verifiable.

The verifiability may be a problem: while i've never heard the term used by an adult, i've a strong opposite impression from kid-peers' use that the deprecated versions in Pud's history have gotten the gender wrong. The written sources on the Web will also be skewed to casual adolescent impressions; hopefully print dictionaries prepared using reliable methods with large populations of informants have spoken on the subject, and the Dictionary of American Regional English would be exceedingly valuable if, as i assume, it has not limited itself to G-rated English.

--Jerzy·t 2005 July 6 08:59 (UTC)

It's meaning one in Slang and Euphemism by Richard Spears (Signet Reference, 2nd rev, 1991) ISBN 0451165543.

1. The penis. Rhymes with "wood." Cf. "pull one's pudding" [U.S. slang, 1900's].

Jokestress 6 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for following that research suggestion.
--Jerzy·t 2005 July 7 05:01 (UTC)

"I've a strong opposite impression from kid-peers' use that the deprecated versions in Pud's hisotry have gotten the gender wrong."

Well! There you go! Between your keen gut-feeling impressions and exhaustive playground research, the proof is unassailable that pud is an entirely male euphemism.

That makes much more sense than if pud were a derivation of Pudenda, defined by Merriam Websters as "the external genital organs of a human being and especially of a woman." Or the OED's definition of pudenda as "any labial folding in the skin of human genitalia, esp. female."

And just forget about the Latin derivation of the word: "ashamed," as if the genitalia were folding in on itself in self-aware shyness... an antiquated metaphor for the female sex organs.

And the whole etymological nature of words to evolve away from their original root meaning over generations? Pffft! Screw that. You never heard a kid use it in the original feminine, so it can't possibly have ever have derived from the feminine pudenda or pudendum. It makes much more sense to have derived the obscene nature of the word from "pudding", even though the assonance doesn't match pudding, but does match pudenda.

You go, Copernicus! I bow to the sheer determination of your will to pervert Occam's Razor. Cshawnmcdonald (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples

I think the editor removing the pud disambiguation going to penis is being too narrow in interpretating what disambiguation pages are supposed to do. By their very nature, a one-word sentence linking to relevant articles is going to feel like a dictionary definition.

~~I have done a quick survey and have found countless examples of slang and euphemism listed on disambiguation pages:~~

~~Joint (disambiguation) takes a reader to spliff among others. Tit takes a reader to breast among others. Ass takes a reader to buttocks among others. Boner takes a reader to erection among others.~~

~~In fact, almost any entry on sexual slang with a non-vulgar meaning has both listed on the disambiguation page.~~
Jokestress 6 July 2005 17:52 (UTC) Contrib struck thru by way of deprecation; see below. --Jerzy·t 2005 July 7 05:01 (UTC)

I said

... the MoS is clear in opposing, on Dab pages, dict-defs or anything else (e.g., the 25 possibly entertaining words on a comic strip and a film relating to detectives), that doesn't serve the Dab-purpose of getting users to the specific articles "that might otherwise share the ... title" of the Dab page.

Further arguments to the contrary should instead be directed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) -- but only after consulting the corresponding page of guidelines.

and you

ignored my clear point that precedents cannot trump guidelines by adding another irrelevant precedent (Cock),
further replied in part
I think the editor removing the pud disambiguation going to penis is being too narrow in interpretating what disambiguation pages are supposed to do.

and summoned a handful among "countless examples" in apparent support of that assertion (with what relevance, i know not, but never mind), and

in the midst of that, quibbled about what "is going to feel like a dictionary definition" in spite of my clear statement that the MoS rules out not just dictdefs but "... anything else ... that doesn't serve ... getting users to the specific articles...".

By these acts, you

continued an arguement that i had already correctly asserted is off topic here,
thereby challenged the orderly practice of contesting guidelines and their interpretations on the talk page(s) associated with the guidelines, and
thus undermined the authority of all WP guidelines.

Further discussion by you here of the MOS and/or its proper interpretation (whether explicitly or implicitly) will result in moving this to an appropriate location, as the first step in an informal RfC on that disruptive behavior by you.

--Jerzy·t 2005 July 7 05:01 (UTC)