Talk:korskilde

RFD discussion: March 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

korskilde

"korskilde" doesn't exist in Danish. No documentation [1] [2] [3] and no useful Google results. I have personally never met this word before. The entry was created by User:Ready Steady Yeti (now User:NativeCat), who has some problems with the Danish language. --ContraVentum (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, delete. That user seems to have moved away from Danish. Not in Den Danske Ordbog. Donnanz (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes delete. At that time, I was just foolishly making entries for words I encountered randomly on the Danish Wikipedia. Delete as author's request. NativeCat ^{drop by and say Hi!} 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

All the inflections will have to be deleted as well. My motto is not to treat Wikipedia as gospel, always try to verify a word in recognised sources such as DDO, or by a Google search (Google Danmark). Not every word appears in a dictionary. Donnanz (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just curious, but @ContraVentum are none of the hits google books:"korskilde" "ikke" usable as citations? ("ikke" added to try to narrow the focus to just Danish.)

From page 287 of Jyske folkeminder, isaer fra Hammerum-Herred, 1876:

... hvorpaa den Onde igjen satte ham ned paa den sondre Side af Kirken ved en Kilde, som kaldes Korskilde, og selv satte han sig et lille Stykke derfra og saa' paa Skrædderen med sine gloende Øjne.

From page 311 of Grundrids til en historisk-topographisk Beskrivelse af det gamle Konge-og Bispesäde Roeskilde:, 1832:

Den nærmeste Kilde, den vestligste i Byen, netop inden for Byens Grændser, er hellige Korskilde, i det sidste Aarhundrede kaldet Kongens Kilde.

From page 462 of Hoiesteretstidende, 1895:

Den 4 Januar d. A. anmedlte Mejjeriforpagter Lund, at der den foregaaende Dag var frastjaalet hans Hustru Cludine Madsen udner et Besøg paa Korskilde Mejeri, en Pelsværksbue, der havde hængt paa en Knagerække i en Gang.

The term may be archaic, even obsolete, but it does appear to exist in citable quantities. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, before the 1948 spelling reform, the first letter of both nouns and proper nouns was capitalized. But in all three examples, Korskilde is used a proper noun. There is a spring in Zealand named Korskilde ~ Hellig Kors Kilde and appearantly one in Jutland, too. Korskilde does exist as a proper noun, though. As far as I can see, the Google Books search only shows the use of Korskilde as a proper noun. If any citations pops up with a substantival use of the term, I would say that the term is obsolete. --ContraVentum (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Aha. Thank you for clarifying. Perhaps move the entry to Korskilde, then? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's a proper noun the inflections would still need to be deleted, I think. Donnanz (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Re-reading the googits, the Jyske folkeminder one looks like a regular noun. Or am I misreading it? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Translated, it says (...) next to a spring, named Korskilde, and then he (...). I think the entry could be moved to Korskilde with a definition like A name of several Danish springs. And the inflections should be deleted, as Donnanz suggests. --ContraVentum (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Derp. My brain was jumping linguistic tracks on the kaldes and rendering that as English cold instead of called. Thank you again. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been dealt with here, but, for future reference: If you want a term deleted because it doesn't exist in a language, the proper venue is Requests for verification. This forum is for cases where there shouldn't be an entry, regardless of usage- usually because it's a phrase whose meaning is obvious from the meanings of its parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

ContraVentum genuinely thought that it should be deleted, and shouldn't be chastised for that. Donnanz (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No chastisement intended, just providing information. It's a very common mistake for first-time posters. I only get annoyed with those who have been participating for a long time and should know better- and even then only when it seems like they're trying to chastise others for stating what should be obvious, rather than checking to see if they're right. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, the headings for RFV and RFD are ambiguous and don't make that clear. I have been confused by them myself. Donnanz (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this naming isn't really practical. --ContraVentum (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)