Talk:викифицировать

RFV

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Quite doubtful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it doubtful? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• RFV passed. No further input in almost two months. It's neologism, like in English. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Unstriking. No attesting quotations have been placed at викифицировать or Citations:викифицировать; nor were links to attenting quotations provided. Furthermore, please do not archive the discussion at the point at which you have closed it at WT:RFV page; a closed discussion should sit at WT:RFV page for about 7 days to see whether someone is going to question to manner of closure before it gets archived on the talk page; see also "Archiving a request" at the top of the page, which transcludes Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? The term is obviously a neologism, not found in published dictionaries or books, used specifically in the Wiki projects. It's not only used in discussions but also, quite heavily, in templates. I'm surprised its English equivalent is found in the Google Books but as a native speaker, I attest it is the correct term, it is used, it's a correct and the only translation of English "wikify", just like numerous other FL terms - wikifier, wikifizieren, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, we do require terms to be attested, and we don't cite other wiki projects. This does have the effect that very little Wiktionary jargon makes it into the dictionary, but then, that's not exactly a bad thing: we're here to define words that people are likely to run across in the wild. Perhaps we could have an appendix of translations of Wiktionary jargon terms like wikify? (I'm not convinced we need such a thing, but it would be better than main-namespace entries like this.) - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking as failed. You can't unilaterally decide that it's verified when there are no citations. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)