Talk:Boke

Scotland/Northern Ireland slang usage? (See Wicktionary / ref. link added)

Boke means vomit in northern Ireland. Both the noun and verb. Don't delete it. [originally unsigned comment / 03:36, 26 July 2008 86.12.226.89]

NOTE: A Wikipedia Disambiguation page is not a dictionary. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOLLOW-UP: I have added a link to Wictionary for the Scotland/Northern Ireland slang usage of word [which has variable spelling online]. NOTE: Wictionary is a dictionary. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. thanks.86.12.224.245 (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post clean-up embedded comment

NOTE: The (now-deleted) extended "WORD" section was created in response to this issue.

To fulfill the function of that and the dual links to Wiktionary boke and boak (and other links), I have added a leading embedded comment reminding new editors that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and directing those looking for the Scottish/Northern Irish word to Wiktionary "boak."
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: August 2008 page upgrade (gathering entries, categorization ...)

NOTE: Some of the new entries gathered at this time may ultimately be pruned. (Seeing all the possibilities aids in designing current and future categories). Proofreader77 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: format/content

If you have questions re: disambiguation guidelines etc and this page,
please leave a note on my talk page.^{NOTE: For general context, see: CDSEOV.} Proofreader77 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project disambiguation ... discuss before action

Discuss issues here or up in Project disambiguation before tackling this. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal protest that disambiguation cleaning is proceeding, ignoring discussion

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Looking_for_input_on_Boke_.28Disambiguation.29
Proofreader77 (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC) COPY BELOW OF ITEMS FROM DISCUSSION AT ABOVE LINK:[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FORMAL COMPLAINT re administrator User:Bkonrad and rollbacker User:Kotniski

Careful and diligent examination of why Boke was formatted that way is in progress.

Changing the page so that what is being discussed is poor form, and certainly beyond the pale for an administrator.

There is no legitimate reason to rush the reformatting of a page under discussion. Continuing shall result in a DR.

NOTE: A DR not for a content dispute — but for outrageous editing behavior by an administrator and a rollbacker.

Dismissive and contemptuous of the community and of process.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you mean. I started tidying up a dab page like we do every day on this project. If you want to discuss something about it, then please say specifically - in normal clear language - what it is you object to and why. Then we can move in the right direction. But there isn't any doubt that the dab page in its current format is totally at odds with the guidelines and accepted standards.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the format while the whys of that format is under discussion is outrageous editing misconduct.
Proofreader77 (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FORMAL REQUEST: Restore the page to the state it was when discussion began. '
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreader77, perhaps you are not aware that we can see the page in your version of 19 March forever, it does not need to be restored to be the current version, to be discussed. You could just explain here, in what ways you think that is better than this Kotniski-edited version. doncram (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I direct your attention to Bkonrad's [diff] with this edit summary:

“

(rvt mistaken WP:OWNership of page -- no valid reasons given for such blatant deviations from standards -- precious self-indulgent prose is a poor excuse for reasoning)

”

That insulting and dismissive response to the careful and methodical laying the groundwork for the discussion on this page is outrageous.
Revert it. The edit summary alone requires that bow to civility and process.
Proofreader77 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FORMAlLY NOTING User:Kotniski is willfully ignoring discussion of the whys of the exceptional formatting of this page

(time stamp) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Talk page is a good forum for explaining the whys of the need for exceptional formatting of this page, if there is such a need. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for having the discussion at the link about is expressed at the link above. Having explicitly to do with SEO vandalism, which should not be detailed on a page subject to that problem. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is subject to SEO vandalism, then it should be protected against it (through protection, not strange formatting). However, glancing at the edit history, there does not appear to be a pattern of that problem here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The particular kind was inserted 3 times, and had the effect described (and to be described further) in the other venue. See TERMINOLOGY there. And my response to the questions in Please explain. Requiring more discussion here (and more links) is ignoring the issue of why there than here, is it not? Proofreader77 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are determined to ignore the discussion linked to above, at least revert the page sensibly

Since I "upgraded" this page (in response to SEO Vandalism), I obviously know what diff you should go to to restore the page to a normal disambiguation page.

This cleaning without discussion is a pox on Wikipedia, but at least do it without so much wasted effort.

If you want the diff, ask. But strongly suggest you simply stop until the issue of WHY the page is the size it is is DISCUSSED.
Proofreader77 (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the normal-dab diff link, do you have a link to the discussion in which the consensus for your "upgrade" to this page was formed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No editors regularly active until I arrived addressing the issue of an attack/libel Google snippet The "upgrade" was specifically to provide "ballast" for Google algorithm (hence the "small" text in the bottom part of the page) so that inserted attacks would not automatically end up a Google snippet. A secondary issue was Urban Dictionary overflow. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TO DISAMBIGUATION CLEANERS: Do NOT strip this page down below 10K UNTIL there is a BOT solution to libel-attack insertion

The page was large/complex to prevent a libel/attack insertion from making into Google snippets where it might persist for weeks.

Unless you are willing to volunteer to check the page every 3 hours, 24 hours a day, then WAIT until there is a BOT solution prepared to handle the small-page vulnerability.

This is a serious matter. Bot first, then strip it down.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that no-one understands what your concern is. We have many short pages on WP, why should this particular one be a problem?--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been used to commit the libelous attack 3 times. No big deal? When it is not reverted it goes into the Google cache for weeks. Big deal. HOW DO YOU PREVENT IT:

Large complex page -- See short version here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#SOME_TERMINOLOGY.2FCONCEPTS: ... see The BOKE Case

It must be a Google #1 Google rank disambiguation page. (Not all are.)

Other circumstances are rarer, but when it happens it must be dealt with — puts the person attacked in the position of watching Wikipedia constantly and forever, or else have it again end up in a persistent Google search snippet. REMINDER: A large-complex page prevents the need for this.

Again, forced to put this on this talk page. Thank you. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN A BOT is in place ... then revert to the July 26 2008 diff

If you want to follow the guidelines, revert to this diff.

I wrote these entries to handle the problem. I know what fits the guidelines.

Revert to that diff .. before I "solved the problem" of the libel insertion with large complex page.

BUT WAIT until you have a bot to watch it, OR someone must watch it all the time. Forever.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this page is vulnerable to libellous insertion any more than other short pages? And if it is, can't that be handled by ordinary page protection?--Kotniski (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is not appropriate for something that might happen again at any time but is not happening frequently.
See your talk page for repetition of the other.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't understood why you choose this page to implement your "solution" on. If there is something abnormally vulnerable about this page, then I think there would be a good case for protection. --Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TECH QUESTION (if you know) If you put a link to an old (now deleted) diff ... on this page, does that mean that seach engines will search the old deleted page?

Would prefer to put that discussion elsewhere than this page..
Proofreader77 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources

lol uncited. (as if anything else in the article is cited)

(what I found after 2 minutes of searching)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boak

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/voices/atilazed/b.shtml

http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Boke

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikisaurus:vomit

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/open-dictionary/entries/boke.htm

A redirect to vomit is legitimate. 128.237.247.47 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it (with consensus and citations) to vomit first. If the article doesn't mention it, then it's not ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request for comment

Hello, this request for comment is about whether or not it is appropriate to have the line "Boke, boak an Irish slang for vomit" in the page. If you go through the discussion page you will see that there are many sources for this. A lot of people have been trying to add it, but 1 or 2 people are systematically deleting the information. Thanks for the input! 128.2.247.140 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be added. DAB pages are for articles with titles spelled similarly, to help users find articles. There is no article Boak on vomit. DAB pages can also refer to things that are not the article title, including alternative names for a topic, but they must be mentioned in the article. There is no such mention in vomit. On sources they are not needed for DAB pages, we go by what is is articles. Lastly Wikipedia is not a dictionary or thesaurus: just because it's mentioned in dictionaries does not mean it needs including on Wikipedia. Wiktionary is for that.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with JohnBlackburne. older ≠ wiser 17:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Boke (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Boke (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Boke (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]