Talk:fluffragette
RFV discussion[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
"(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)
- 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)
- Conversation continued at [[WT:BP#"Appearance in a refereed academic journal"]].—msh210℠ (talk) 18:39, 15 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)
- Is the "use-mention distinction" irrelevant to the academic-journal rule? Might merit a vote. Equinox ◑ 22:42, 13 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)