This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]