Talk:JunexNick
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFD discussion: November–December 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
No definition beyond the sum of its parts. It's not a portmanteau ship name like Bangel or Kataang, it's just a generic "name x name" term that you could create a literally infinite amount of (e.g. "MulderxScully", "KirkxSpock", "DavexKarkat"). Unless I'm missing something, this is like having a page for "wooden door". Binarystep (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- See the citations. This seems to occur mostly as an unspaced word. It's the name for this particular ship. Not all ship names follow the portmanteau convention. There is generally a space between character names when "x" is used as a simple conjunction. One would typically only encounter the forms "KirkxSpock" or "MulderxScully" as tags on platforms (such as Instagram) that don't allow spaces in tags. "Kirk x Spock" and "Mulder x Scully" would be used to refer to the ship generally. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- All citations are in reference to an entity (a ship) from the fictional universe of the TV series The Handmaid’s Tale. It appears the entry fails WT:FICTION. --Lambiam 15:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fandom slang falls within the scope of CFI. WT:FICTION does not proscribe any and all terms referencing aspects of a fictional universe. We wouldn't have entries for Sherlockian or Scroogelike if it did. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless, the term still appears to violate WT:SOP. I've found Google results for "AangxKatara", "BuffyxAngel", "BuffyxSpike", "DavexKarkat", "HolmesxWatson", "KirkxSpock", "MulderxScully", and "SpikexBuffy", all written without spaces, and all used in sentences rather than tags. The "[name]x[name]" ship format is a snowclone, and I don't see why one particular iteration of it deserves its own entry. Binarystep (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of those seem to occur in durably archived sources. Whereas JunexNick has been used in at least three academic articles and papers. (Possibly more because there's other inaccessible-to-me hits on Google Scholar, but those may be citations of the 2018 Warner article, which features JunexNick in the title, rather than actual uses.) Per COALMINE terms that would likely be considered SOP with spaces between the components may be deemed inclusion-worthy if they are attestable in an unspaced form. Compare dirtybadwrong for another fandom-specific example. That might be considered SOP if it occurred solely as dirty bad wrong. But as a compound it functions as a single word rather than three discrete adjectives. JunexNick is the proper-noun ship name that seems to have emerged over Junick and other possibilities. It would be interesting to document why this happened, but that idiosyncraticness isn't a barrier to inclusion. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, "COALMINE" works the other way around. It would allow, Gawd help us, June x Nick if JunexNick exists. Mihia (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds like a problem with our source policy, then. Just because a term is used more in academic sources doesn't prove anything about how it's actually used in real life. In fandom spaces, the "[name]x[name]" format is ubiquitous, and functionally no different than any of the entries on this page. There's nothing etymologically significant about "JunexNick", which leads me to believe it's just the most documented version of this template for whatever reason. Binarystep (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- How terms are "actually used in real life" ultimately doesn't factor into whether or not they are deemed inclusion-worthy. What CFI requires for attestation are three durably archived citations demonstrating usage over a period of at least a year. This does leave us with gaps in our lexical coverage, and makes it more difficult to attest newer slang. It means there's popular slang that can't be attested simply because it hasn't found its way into print media yet. It means we can't attest fandom slang "at the source" through Tumblr or Twitter, but have to rely primarily on books, journal articles, and theses written about fandom. But despite its flaws, it's usually a straightforward standard, and this term meets the requirements. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The standard may be straightforward, but I fail to see what actually makes it good or useful. As long as we can't document language as it's actually spoken, our coverage will always be several years behind. In any case, this term is simply one variant of a popular snowclone, which is only considered inclusion-worthy because it happens to be the only variant that's been used in print media. This would be like making pages for "trouble with a capital T" and "crazy with a capital C" simply because they're frequently-used versions of the "X with a capital Y" format. Binarystep (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me like two words separated by a symbol should be treated as if they were separated by a space. If something is found in running text as "foo,bar" instead of "foo, bar", it doesn't suddenly become immune from our SOP rules. The "x" in this expression is a stand-in for the mathematical operator "×", which is used when discussing hybrids to denote that the item on the left is crossed with the item on the right, and in taxonomic names for hybrid species. The only reason a letter of the alphabet came to be used for this kind of thing in the first place is the lack of a key for the correct symbol on most keyboards. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- How terms are "actually used in real life" ultimately doesn't factor into whether or not they are deemed inclusion-worthy. What CFI requires for attestation are three durably archived citations demonstrating usage over a period of at least a year. This does leave us with gaps in our lexical coverage, and makes it more difficult to attest newer slang. It means there's popular slang that can't be attested simply because it hasn't found its way into print media yet. It means we can't attest fandom slang "at the source" through Tumblr or Twitter, but have to rely primarily on books, journal articles, and theses written about fandom. But despite its flaws, it's usually a straightforward standard, and this term meets the requirements. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of those seem to occur in durably archived sources. Whereas JunexNick has been used in at least three academic articles and papers. (Possibly more because there's other inaccessible-to-me hits on Google Scholar, but those may be citations of the 2018 Warner article, which features JunexNick in the title, rather than actual uses.) Per COALMINE terms that would likely be considered SOP with spaces between the components may be deemed inclusion-worthy if they are attestable in an unspaced form. Compare dirtybadwrong for another fandom-specific example. That might be considered SOP if it occurred solely as dirty bad wrong. But as a compound it functions as a single word rather than three discrete adjectives. JunexNick is the proper-noun ship name that seems to have emerged over Junick and other possibilities. It would be interesting to document why this happened, but that idiosyncraticness isn't a barrier to inclusion. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless, the term still appears to violate WT:SOP. I've found Google results for "AangxKatara", "BuffyxAngel", "BuffyxSpike", "DavexKarkat", "HolmesxWatson", "KirkxSpock", "MulderxScully", and "SpikexBuffy", all written without spaces, and all used in sentences rather than tags. The "[name]x[name]" ship format is a snowclone, and I don't see why one particular iteration of it deserves its own entry. Binarystep (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fandom slang falls within the scope of CFI. WT:FICTION does not proscribe any and all terms referencing aspects of a fictional universe. We wouldn't have entries for Sherlockian or Scroogelike if it did. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not pretending to know anything much about fandom, but my own feeling is (like Binarystep's) that this is presumably the normal use of x, and if you find it in attestation that doesn't say anything special about this term, except that more people have written about this one. On the other hand I create a zillion nonX words meaning "not X"; but on the other other hand those are really no worse than unX (about which nobody would complain). When we're dealing with proper nouns and neologisms it feels a bit more shaky. Equinox ◑ 02:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as SoP since this is just a use of x to represent a multiplication sign, and typed without spaces. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, assuming that this is an arbitrarily reusable pattern. Would get ridiculous. Mihia (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reasons as Talk:S01E01: it's formulaic/SOP, despite the lack of spaces, which was probably initially motivated by technical restrictions (on spaces in hashtags, as discussed above). - -sche (discuss) 16:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, WT:Fiction should apply to this kind of thing. None Shall Revert (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- RFD-deleted. For what it's worth, I think it makes sense to consider this merely a stylistic variant of the version with spaces (which would obviously not merit an entry), but until we become more consistent on how to treat spaces, this issue will continue. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)