Talk:fickern
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
listed as a German term, but no interwiki's. multiple anon-users (different IP's, over a period of months) keep changing it to ficken , which we already have a proper entry for & is well interwiki'd. --Versageek 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- It’s dialect for ficken. I don’t know how many different dialects have it, but it’s used in the Rheinland. That would be dialects such as Kölsch, Limburgish and Rhenish. —Stephen 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- How do we handle noting dialects in an entry? it's not really an alternate spelling.. maybe a usage note? It should be noted or people are going to keep changing it to the more common form. --Versageek 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I put a note that it is dialect. —Stephen 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Striking. —RuakhTALK 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
De.Wikt's entry, like ours, states that this is a regional German synonym of ficken. De.Wikt's entry, like ours, lacks evidence of that. The Pfälzisches Wörterbuch only has "fickeln" and "ficken"; the Rheinisches Wörterbuch doesn't have this sense; and Google Books hits all seem to be scannos or the noun. Even raw Google hits for "zu fickern" and "Kölsch"+"fickern" are mostly Google Books scannos or the noun. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- 11 September till 9 October - that's less than a month and less than 30 days, but in the lead it is "After a discussion has sat for more than a month ...".
(I don't think that quotes would be added in the remaining time, but this looks like some administrator's arbitrariness or despotism ...) -Rdm571 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)- It may look like that, but actual practice isn't quite so rigid. The important thing is for the discussion to remain here long enough for people to be able to find out about it and to raise any concerns. Entries can be easily undeleted, and further cites can be added to the citations page, which is left undeleted (it's not that uncommon for deleted entries to be restored years later after suitable cites are added to the citations page). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- 11 September till 9 October - that's less than a month and less than 30 days, but in the lead it is "After a discussion has sat for more than a month ...".
- Don't forget all the forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)