Talk:Grunge speak

The following terms are legitimate:

dish - desirable guy
score - great

--Lukobe 05:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But were they legit then? And were they spoken in the Seattle grunge scene? You would have to prove both to argue that they weren't at least fake then. Even then, they were still mentioned in the interview, so they still belong there. -- LGagnon 23:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the glossary

This site [1] claims the NY Times reprinted the glossary from a British magazine. Can this be verified? -- Paul Richter 09:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is, I believe, what the Baffler said. It was a British' magazine that called Sub Pop looking for the slang, then printed it. Soundgarden was in Britain at the time, saw it, realized it was a joke but played along by using it in interviews. So then the Times picked it up. Daniel Case 17:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I've been swinging on the flippety flop for years, in the wrong (linguistic) place? --Christofurio 21:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

You'll occasionally hear a 'rock on' from people. And 'score' is actually used pretty frequently. I've been known to say it quite a bit.

I heard "rock on" used in the early to mid 80s, to mean something akin to "right on" or "that's great".

I've certainly heard "rock on" and "score", but they're certainly not grunge-specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Morris (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Attention: Slang Glossary policy discussion underway

Slang glossaries violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

Due to the many AfDs which are initiated to enforce this policy and due to the resistance to such deletion by defenders of the glossaries, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to rewrite the policy in order to solve this problem and to readdress this question: should slang glossaries by allowed on Wikipedia? --List Expert 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a slang list. This is about a hoax which was about slang. You've completely missed the point of this article, and did not invalidate it under any of the terms you mentioned. -- LGagnon 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, people get so hung up on the letter of the law that they miss the reason for the rules existing -- which, in the case of the slang guidelines, is to prevent people from creating articles for slang terms they made up with their friends. This is a perfectly legitimate article about a notable (if minor) pop culture-related hoax. MrBook (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here's the original NYT article. I don't know how to include it in this entry http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEED7173BF936A25752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.161.245 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

See Talk:Grunge/Archive 4#Proposed merge with Grunge speak: This article is solely reliant on primary sources (the NYT piece that is the subject of the topic, The Baffler piece that responded to it, leaving only the Observer piece about the hoax itself, and a mention in the documentary). In all, it's more a part of grunge's history than an independently notable topic. czar 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard about it on WNYC Studio 360 show - so now it's more notable. 74.88.72.39 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "Legacy" section because one of the terms spawned a comic book, and then a television series. There's clearly enough notability here to justify an article. Trumpetrep (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]