Talk:Term of endearment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Term of endearment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Regional differences

I think this article would be informative if it listed regional differences in terms of endearment commonly used. For example, I've notices British English speakers are more likely to use "love" than Americans (I personally am most likely to say "honey" or "hun"). Also, I've heard people in a Cockney dialect use "ducks" or "ducky", which I'd've never thought to use. I think this would be an interesting article topic, but there's no way I could do it myself. Any thoughts? Garnet avi 05:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I don't know enough about these differences to write about them. Jakarr 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate list page

I created a separate page to list examples: list of terms of endearment. So far, it only has the terms from this article. If we remove the examples section (or replace it with something more succinct) and place a link to the new list, I think this article will be less cluttered. Jakarr 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

In the article there is a line: "Some words are clearly derived from each other, such as "sweetheart" and "sweetie", while others bear no etymological resemblance, such as "baby" and "cutie".^{[citation needed]}". It says "citation needed". How the heck does that need a citation? I mean, I know there's a wikipedia policy about first-person research, but I'm sure there's also something in there about indisputable common knowledge (and self-evident from the statement to boot). This sentence falls under that. I'm removing the "citation needed" because I think it's ridiculous, but feel free to discuss it here if you feel otherwise. But please, explain why that needs a reference before you ask for one that's too perplexing to contemplate. Garnet avi (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd paragraph of Usage

Does anybody understand this paragraph? It sounds a bit too esoteric & spiritual for my liking... 143.167.25.226 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was pure vandalism crap. I didn't notice that vandal 70.121.104.113 had re-added it yet again... AnonMoos (talk)

"Examples"

Let's remove this section. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wiktionary does this sort of thing much better. It even says in that little box at the top that "For a list of words relating to terms of endearment, see the Terms of endearment category of words in Wiktionary, the free dictionary" and a convenient link is provided for the reader. So why keep the "Examples" section?

At the AFD for the list, I pointed out that the list was unnecessary because of the Wiktionary category, and because of the box that points Wikipedia readers to that Wiktionary category. Well, now the list is right next to the box. The pointlessness of keeping this list on Wikipedia should be crystal clear. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples help illustrate what the article covers and encyclopedias typically list examples. The list is thus necessary in that regard. Plus, the AfD should have closed as keep anyway. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, examples are already incorporated in the text and they are OK for illustrative purposes. Wiktionary link gives a complete list. It makes sense to list notable cases, i.e., specifically terms of endearment with individual wp articles; this is a common practice with all wikipedia lists. We don't have Snookums article, and rightly so. Heck, we don't even have Shnookums page :-) - 7-bubёn >t 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, please don't revert without explanations. - 7-bubёn >t 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of heaping here an andiscriminate bunch of examples, a better idea would be to classify them into types and give 1-2 examples per type. This may be done in the form of an encyclopedic text. - 7-bubёn >t 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder name might be a good archetype for this article, in terms of being a global survey of one sort of slang term organized by type and given adequate context. Cherry Cotton (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

New sources

Iv'e found this comprehensive list at- http://www.yourlovecoach.co.uk/blog/terms-of-endearment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.79.18 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately that is a blog and so is not a reliable source per WP:RS --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So It was a hoax site I found then.--82.2.79.18 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 February 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

HI Bigdog767676 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bless your heart"

Should Bless your heart be mentioned? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proper names section makes no sense

Was obviously written by a Lacan fan, but doesn't do a good job explaining whatever point Lacan was making. 174.30.94.119 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]