Talk:pecker
While the meaning "penis" is mildly vulgar or mildly offensive, I'm not so sure it can honestly be called slang, at least here in the US. --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
RFV 1[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Sense #4: "US, slang white trash." Is this specific to some region? Mid-West? Southern? --Connel MacKenzie 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the definition is that precise; it's used as a pejorative description for a person, just as other similar anatomical words are. --EncycloPetey 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the southern US sense is from peckerwood, as I understand it. -- Visviva 03:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
RFV 2[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense "white trash". Was discussed on RFV in 2007 (see the talk page); needs to be actually cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Probably a shortening of (deprecated template usage) peckerwood. Easier to find non-penile usages when combined with other derogatory words like stupid or ignorant. ~ Robin (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Everything I see on Google Books for "stupid pecker", "ignorant pecker" is penile or a different lemma (such as "stupid pecker-head"). Maybe someone can cite it from Groups. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Dan[edit]
The subsensing is (with improvement) via the OED. The MWD is hardly a gold standard. — LlywelynII 15:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is consensus for subsensing. I don’t know what DP is talking about. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate the consensus? Especially, can you show that editors want that agent nouns start with a general sense with all other definitions getting indented as subsenses? (What a silly idea, if you ask me.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Subsensing has been in use for years and years and has had next to no opposition. Recently, subsenses were discussed in this RFV and no one was against them. Practices that improve Wiktionary do not need discussions nor votes before they are used; it is you who should start one if you think it needs to be stopped (which probably no one else does). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think I have to repeat myself: Can you demonstrate the consensus? As for Talk:cat#RFV_discussion:_June_2014, you must be joking: RFV is for attestation, and the RFV was closed the very day it was opened, a very bad practice.
- And again, quite specifically, can you show that editors want to have agent nouns lead with a supersense, attested or not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Typical DP. Again: if you want subsensing to be banned, you start a discussion or vote. Until then, they will be allowed thank you very much. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Subsensing has been in use for years and years and has had next to no opposition. Recently, subsenses were discussed in this RFV and no one was against them. Practices that improve Wiktionary do not need discussions nor votes before they are used; it is you who should start one if you think it needs to be stopped (which probably no one else does). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate the consensus? Especially, can you show that editors want that agent nouns start with a general sense with all other definitions getting indented as subsenses? (What a silly idea, if you ask me.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Subsensing and correctness[edit]
Since the other user has out-reverted me so far and I have little interest in revert warring further: I think subsensing is a very tricky thing to do right. The users I have seen do it do not have the talent to do it right. For what we now have in pecker: the general sense is "Someone who or something that pecks, striking or piercing in the manner of a bird's beak or bill". The following are IMHO not narrower senses of this general sense: An eater, a diner; A nose; spirits, nerve, courage; cock, dick, a penis; whitey; white trash; an aggressive or objectionable idiot. For the other senses, I am not sure.
As before, I think this should be reverted to status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nose is a by-extension senses of bird’s beak, and spirits a by-extension sense of nose, so they should probably remain where they are. Eater should probably be made a general sense too. No comment on white trash. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nose is an extension by appearance or anatomical location, not by being a thing that pecks. This is why the nose sits in the same etymology: it originates by extension. By the style of reasoning you showed, all senses except for the first one could become "subsenses" of the first sense, in most entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a fair enough point w/r/t nose and spirits. As mentioned elsewhere "~ pecks ~" does precisely cause the senses of "eater" and "dick".
- Nose is an extension by appearance or anatomical location, not by being a thing that pecks. This is why the nose sits in the same etymology: it originates by extension. By the style of reasoning you showed, all senses except for the first one could become "subsenses" of the first sense, in most entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- No one's mentioned it, but I'll also move out the electrical pecker head sense: it doesn't derive directly from a part of the machine moving (it doesn't move at all) but from a supposed resemblance to a piece of farm equipment. — LlywelynII 10:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)