Talk:Ca²⁺

Request for verification

What in particular is needed for verification of this entry? --Ceyockey 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno really. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Verification debate

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Does this really meet our CFI? If so, there are a million to follow. SemperBlotto 07:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We should RFD it then. Are you denying it exists? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

move to RFD -- Prince Kassad 16:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• At the top of this page it says "Requests for Verification is Wiktionary’s forum for verifying whether a definition meets our criteria for inclusion." - That is what I asked. SemperBlotto 09:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see this become SoP by the addition of entries at 1+ 2+ etc -- ALGRIF talk 11:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed: clearly widespread use, plus two citations from peer-reviewed academic journals (one of which was already there when the term was listed here). I'll move it to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 12:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Listed by SemperBlotto at RFV, but clearly was meant for RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• So what's the rationale here? Sum-of-parts? Polarpanda 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Semper didn't want to delete this which is why he listed it at RFV to see if this met our CFI, which AFAICT it does, ergo keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping, as it wasn't 'clearly' meant for rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Ca²⁺

This never had a proper RFD, it seems. It should be treated like we treat numerals, where we don't have 987 either because it's obvious what it means if you know the individual digits 9, 8 and 7. It's the same here. Keeping this would open the door to millions of terms like Na⁺, Cl⁻, O²⁻, Os⁸⁺, and whatnot. -- Liliana • 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I seem to recall from "Attestation vs. the slippery slope" that opening the door to other terms is not a problem. (and this door has been open for quite some time) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: others that we have include H₂, H₂O, D₂O, H₂O₂. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

These are different, though. -- Liliana • 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine that we would have different rules for ions and molecules. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the way these things are constructed, I would question whether this is the kind of "language" we should include. (2+2=4 seems to be an attestable translingual utterance that conveys meaning.) Equinox ◑ 15:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like SOP to me. Ca + 2 + +. —CodeCat 15:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably, if you make that ⁺ rather then +. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards delete. Note that as a separate and tenuously related issue, H₂O does seem to be attested as an English noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How would someone look this up? Would they need to know Unicode? DCDuring TALK 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We have the redirect Ca2+, which can be searched for. -- Liliana • 05:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Ca2+ also deleted. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)