This article was nominated for deletion on 2009-01-25. The result of the discussion was merge to Terms of endearment.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Terms of endearment.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-13. The result of the discussion was keep.

I created this page to get rid of the long examples section of the terms of endearment article. Jakarr 07:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some terms, some from http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx%5C?articleid=3862 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.17.42 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added additions to the list that have either been overlooked or are in a different language. For example, from the source given above, Yagodka (Russian) is Jagoda (Bosnian).

Should there be a heading that states that many of these terms can be combined? I know it says it on the terms of endearment but not on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicMatt1021 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget T.o.E. you would use for children, pets, or friends. I noticed before I added a few they could almost exclusively be for lovers. Garnet avi (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to this page to find a large amount of valid terms deleted and some rather weird ones added. Please, remember this is a reference list for Terms of Endearment, which include terms for children and pets as well as lovers. Also, this is for common terms, not ones that someone made up for their special someone. The information doesn't help anyone, as cute nicknames can be anything and don't give information about cultural differences. They can also be rather weird. (*cough*ProfessorBigBritches*cough*) Think before you edit. Garnet avi (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and i'm all for a major purge of this page to leave only the common ones. — DeFender1031 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned out the list, but I may have removed some terms that are appropriate as well as the useless fluff. Also, I left the ones that were not in english. I can vouch for El Jefe (spanish for "The Chief") but not the other ones. Tealwisp (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is lulzy193.1.52.12 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I nominate that Nyarlathotep the creeping unknown become one also. King Geiseric (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could be improved by:

• Adding some more information about each term of endearment. I would suggest having:
  • The term of endearment
  • Language
  • If it's not in English, provide a literal translation for reference
  • A link to the term's Wiktionary page
  • An idea of the scope of this term of endearment—is it used for lovers, spouse, kids, pets, or all of the above etc.
• Given the added information, this might best be presented as a table.
• Given the possible tendency of some users to indiscriminately add new terms, I think we should have a citation for every term in the list. This would/could just be a citation showing the term in use as an endearment, not necessarily establishing notability.

What do you all think?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: In terms of citations, I think we should try to add as many as possible now and if citations can't be found for any of the terms still in the list, they should be removed (and perhaps kept here on the talk page in a list of terms that need citations before being added to the list).  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit someone removed more than half of the article. You can NOT source something which is not there any more. Warrington (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it and added some general refs which cover multiple items. Do we really doubt most of these? I don't think so. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really, my dear fluffy bunny...

Warrington (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Hippity hop! -- Banjeboi 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one belive that nothing should go in this list if its not properly sourced per WP:V. Long lists like this need to be tamed with some sort of criterion for inclusion, and it should be at the very least a source documenting that the term has been used (or preferable, is notable as) a term of endearment. Themfromspace (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good rationale on the main article, from which this list derived, that a a term is notable as a term of endearment ergo it can represent the rest. A list, though, by nature is more inclusive and common sense needs to also play a part. I've worked through a few lists and with very few exceptions the majority were actually exactly as the list had described them and it was simply a ... labour of love to source each and every single item. If I have a coffee I just might make a run at this list too. The only tricky bits are the non-english terms and those can be sorted out quickly enough. -- Banjeboi 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I will commit to sourcing all entries in this list, but I can't do it before Saturday, Jan 31, 2009 as I will be out of town. I would ask that people don't mass remove unsourced entries in the interim, or if you feel you have to, create a section here on the talk page to archive the terms that are waiting for a source. As sources are found the (now sourced) terms can be moved to the article. Either way is fine with me.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This version has all of the ones added by random passersby. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more sourced, exspanded and upgraded now.--82.14.58.146 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new souces are not that great (mostly referenced to a blog, http://www.yourlovecoach.co.uk/blog/terms-of-endearment/). All I see is the same indiscriminate list, complete with unsourced nonsense like "my little vector". Probably should revert to the redirect, per the AFD and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Hairhorn (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it probably shouldn't, seeing as a merge was never even suggested by a single !voter at the AFD and it was suggested and decided as the "course of action" by a single person .... Hardly a consensus. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but there were no shoratge of delete votes. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 2 where this didn't fly. All I see is an indiscriminate list, mostly sourced to blogs. That doesn't cut it. Hairhorn (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no shortage of overturns also, based in the reasoning that it was plainly beyond the closing admin's scope of duty, to suggest and act upon his own feelings (that were non-consensus or even suggested in the discussion). You really like the idea of WP working on the consensus of 1 on anything??? So Fix It preferably without setting off the landmine that a bold "mass purging" would surely do. As has already been discussed on this page, that does not work. The last merge was immediately undone, and I am sure the next one will be undone again also, why start a revert war? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only way to "fix" this page is to purge all the terms that are unsourced, or sourced to bad refs like blogs. But that is bound to be little more than a duplicate of the list already at Terms_of_endearment#Examples. Hairhorn (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Above the ToC of this page, the results of delete/merge discussions appeared in what amounted to random order. I rearranged them to one of the two reasonably logical orders, commenting in the edit history

Rearrange merge-discussion results in order of decreasing recency, instead of apparently randomly, to reduce confusion

   While formally the discussion is called a deletion discussion, the distinction between merging and deleting is more like a detail. IMO, the notion of a substantial list of ToEs in an encyclopedia is pretty silly, and to me it's not surprising, but encouraging, that the few examples now included tend toward identifying patterns rather than attempting to enumerate.
--Jerzy•t 03:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]