Talk:impetuousnesses

RFV — failed

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.

---

impetuousnesses

-ness terms are supposed to be uncountable. The speedy delete tag I put upon it was removed, with the remover saying "see Google books". I looked, and only one result popped up. No results whatsoever found in Usenet or Google News. This seems to be unworthy of inclusion. Teh Rote 15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be a prevailing pattern for -ness words, but you will find many, many exceptions. For this one, OTOH, I found just one cite, from a well-known author, if not a well-known work. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The blog citations do not seem to be from "durably archived sources" and, hence, do not help attest this form. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the blog citations may be removed if wanted. I don't know more about this word than the abovementioned fact, that it is used in a book. If people decide that the book as the only citation simply won't suffice, I'm not going to insist on impetuousness being countable. By the way, thanks to Teh Rote for bringing it to RVF instead of speedy deletion after my remark. --Eivind (t) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it is not that the concept can't be in the plural. Approximately the same meaning can be delivered by using impetuosities, for which cites are abundantly available. It may well be that a word ending in "-nesses" is not much used if a synonym (especially from the same root) is available instead. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the concept can be delivered in plural, but blog cites don't usually work except for slang phrases, which this isn't. I'm sorry for being a bit quick with the speedy tag; the term seemed to remind me of "sightlessnesses", which I created before knowing of the anti-nesses and SB deleted it quickly. Maybe this can be added to some sort of appendix, such as Appendix:Unverified plurals? Teh Rote 02:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I acctually just had the same thought, and think that might be great. There is quite a lot of plurals that I find with just a few (or only one) citation. It might be a good idea to have an appendix for these. --Eivind (t) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations on the Citation page will remain after entry is removed. The Appendix is an interesting idea. It would also apply to inflected forms of verbs and comparatives and superlatives of adjectives that had been challenged and under-attested. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created the appendix and replaced the page with {{only in|{{in appendix|Unverified plurals}}}}. Conrad.Irwin 13:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Just to let y'all know, impetuosity was declared "uncountable" by a contributor, though the evidence is to the contrary. Please check before declaring something uncountable. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)