Talk:assholocracy

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Durable cites[edit]

Added back some that are durable, please don't remove these, they are durable citations, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say that they're durable? Some of them really don't seem to be; for example, the patheos.com cite is in a comment to what seems to be a plain old blog post. —RuakhTALK 03:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for engaging me in polite communication! And thanks very much for being specific about your comments! As a gesture of good faith, I've gone ahead and removed the specific cite you referred to. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


assholocracy
arseholeocracy
assholeocracy

Though blessed by mention by Geoffrey K. Pullum, I don't think this and the purported alternative forms meets our standards for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Arseholeocracy does get one Google Book hit which looks like a valid, usable one, but the other two get absolutely NOTHING anywhere that I can find. If you want to leave 'em 30 days do, but they look like clear failures. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
IANAL, but I believe in due process. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It really ought to be proctocracy anyway. —Angr 11:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If assholeness and and assholic and assholedom are citable I bet these are too, we love our insults.Lucifer 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, assholocracy was already (and remains) listed in Appendix:List of protologisms/A-P. If this gets successfully attested, it should be removed from there. ~ Robin 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created proctocracy, which just barely satisfies our criteria for inclusion. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've done a bit of research, and added cites to the page. After I'd added up to six (6) on the page itself, I went ahead and created a citations page, at Citations:assholocracy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking just at the form assholocracy, it's now adequately cited (just about — some of them fail the use-mention distinction by being people defining the word, but there are at least three using it), so keep that one. I don't know about the other spellings. Equinox 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
If you examine the citations page, Citations:assholocracy, you'll see that the other uses linked above, are cited, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
assholeocrat has two citations which meet Wiktionary's standards, arseholeocracy has one, the others have none. :/ - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
And I really can't find any more in books or on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, bear with me, I'm in the process of doing additional research on this. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Update on status of citations: The citations page at Citations:assholocracy now has three (3) cites to Usenet, one book cite, and three (3) cites to newspaper articles that are archived themselves via database archives including LexisNexis. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

When I count the citations, I arrive at different numbers:

  • assholeocrat, assholeocrats: one use each
  • Arseholeocracy: one citation which may be a mention, one non-durably-archived use, both capitalised sic
  • assholocracy: several mentions; one capitalised use IF this is durably archived, one more IF this is

By my count, [[assholocracy]], [[assholeocracy]] and [[arseholeocracy]] all fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if we could please keep [[assholocracy]] for now, keeping in mind I've worked quite a bit on the research and its citations page at Citations:assholocracy has ten (10) citations. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems unreasonable to individually tally singular assholeocrat from plural assholeocrats for RFV purposes. Surely we needn't separately attest every regularly-formed plural of every noun. My inclination would be to count minor spelling variations like assholocracy and assholeocracy as the same word, too. ~ Robin (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis by Robin, and if we tally these citations, there are clearly plenty for more than adequate attestation. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Standard practice is to accept singular and regularly-formed plural forms together; I put them on the same line in my meticulous count of the citations for this reason, not to imply that they should be treated separately. Different spellings are not conflated in RFV, however. Per RFV policy, which is stated at the top of this page, I have closed this months-old RFV by deleting all of the entries, as they are insufficiently cited and fail RFV. The citations which have been gathered so far, including the ones which are non-durable and do not count for RFV purposes, remain on the Citations pages, and more citations can be gathered there. - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This action is premature. There was an ongoing effort to add additional cites to the citations page. And an emerging consensus in this subsection not to delete this. Please undo this deletion so we can further discuss this. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Cirt, in fairness, this RFV was open for six months, and you’ve been gathering cites for four.
I gave assholocracy an {{only in}} stub pointing to its still extant Appendix:List of protologisms entry, and encouraging collection of evidence on the Citations page. I expect this word will eventually get enough published uses to meet CFI, but it doesn’t seem to be there yet. ~ Robin (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)