Talk:antiRobespierrist
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: May–June 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
- google books results have "anti- (linebreak) Robespierrist". Google incorrectly gives them as results for "antiRobespierrist" but actually it's anti-Robespierrist.
- there's no more or most anti-Robespierrist
14:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E961:C969:B1CE:6F39:3718 (talk).
- The second comment is invalid, as one could easily talk about the more anti-Robespierrist members of a group. However, it is true that when one drills down on most of the Google hits it does turn out to be anti-Robespierrist. I added three cites to the citations page (the only three I could find that did not include a hyphen) - two for an adjective and one for a noun. I believe this is enough to include antiRobespierrist as an alt form of anti-Robespierrist if we wanted to "coalmine" it in. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1 of the 3 cites is with hyphen (though with linebreak). — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3728:BF14:A5B6:4709:CF0F:FF1F (talk) at 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC).
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)