Talk:fluffragette

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

RFV discussion[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.


"(informal) a woman with pre-feminist views." Equinox 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is mentioned in what appears to be a refereed academic e-journal. Technically, I think that counts, even though it really, really shouldn't. Here's the context:
FLIR = ‘forward-looking infrared system’ acronym homonymy/reverse
fluffragette < fluff + suffragette blend overlap
FOI-able = ‘Freedom of Information Act + available’ suffixation from acronym
Obviously, this particular ConFI is broken, but given that it's currently in place … I guess we keep the entry? :-/
RuakhTALK 22:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the "use-mention distinction" irrelevant to the academic-journal rule? Might merit a vote. Equinox 22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
WT:CFI explicitly applies the "conveying meaning" requirement (i.e., use as opposed to mention) only to the three-cites rule. I think it implicitly applies it to the clearly-widespread-use and well-known-work rules, in that it speaks of "use" and "usage". But for journals, it speaks only of "appearance". I don't know quite why that is — it's been that way since before my time — but I had assumed that it was intentional, a way of accepting peer-reviewed content that we can't verify ourselves, as long as it's not from another dictionary that could potentially sue us. ;-)   I may well have assumed wrongly, though. —RuakhTALK 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
So, after digging through the history, I find that this edit changed the rule from "Common usage is attested in a reputable academic work" (which is almost identical to the statement in the very first version of WT:CFI[1]) to "It appears in a refereed academic journal" (which is more or less what we have today). I don't know how much consensus was behind that change — this was well before *cough* a certain editor decided that VOTEs should be required for all future edits — but I would support a vote to change it back. That older version makes much more sense. —RuakhTALK 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I too would support requiring academic journals to use words. (Anyone wondering if there would be interest in a vote, take note.) — Beobach972 04:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Conversation continued at [[WT:BP#"Appearance in a refereed academic journal"]].​—msh210 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted (due to the change to [[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion]] that resulted from [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-11/Attestation in academic journals]]). —RuakhTALK 22:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)