Talk:pleasurization

RFV

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. In the interests of assuming good faith, 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.

pleasurization Zero b.g.c., only 11 web-google hits. --Connel MacKenzie 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) "Pleasurization" does get three b.g.c. hits, though one is iffy. The other two both seem to mean "the process of making pleasurable or pleasant": Quotations moved to page. DAVilla 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC) The iffy one is this one — iffy if only because it's in quote-marks to indicate that even its fictional author intended it as a nonce (some info taken from the publisher's Web site): 2005 July 1, Steven Digman, The Art of Women ... and other troubles, Digman's Violin & Publishing Co., →ISBN, pages 34–35, Helen was the "Passion Editor" for the well distributed and the very well proportioned "womanary" magazine "The Treasure Breast." Abnormally, Helen would never accept any unsolicited material, but this one, "Samuel's Fantasy," had somehow found it way onto Helen's bed (the bed being where she read). So Helen (making herself comfortable) - read. ¶ Certainly the title was neither profound nor unique but the first chapter definitely was: "The 'Pleasurization' Process"... (The ellipsis and the other weirdnesses — "abnormally" for "normally", "it way" for "its way", hyphen for em dash in a place you'd expect neither — are all in the original.) Sorry for the long quote, but I wasn't sure exactly how much set-up would be useful for y'all to catch the meaning being used. (I considered including more post-context, but it's all about Helen pleasuring herself while reading or thinking about the chapter; enough said.) —RuakhTALK 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Hmm... why did you hard-code ambidextrous quotes? Anyways, I would trim the quotation like this: Helen was the “Passion Editor” for the well distributed and the very well proportioned “womanary” magazine “The Treasure Breast.” ... “Samuel’s Fantasy,” had somehow found it[s] way onto Helen’s bed (the bed being where she read).... Certainly the title was neither profound nor unique but the first chapter definitely was: “The 'Pleasurization’ Process”... But I don't think even a bigger chunk would convey meaning clearly enough. With the innuendo all we really get is a sense of the topic, and everything else is inferred even more indirectly than that. DAVilla 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Please note: Citations given (all three) were for a different spelling. Citation format is still using the nonstandard proposed format that doesn't retain the useful links. --Connel MacKenzie 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) There wasn't anything to retain. I copied the quotes verbatim. But you're welcome to discipline Ruakh for using a “nonstandard” citation format. DAVilla 17:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Re: spelling: Yes, sorry, I should have said that explicitly. (I searched b.g.c. for "(pleasurization|pleasurizations|pleasurisation|pleasurisations)", and those are the three cites that came up.) Re: "non-standard proposed format": I use the standard format described at Wiktionary:Quotations, except that where it says, "If the quotation can be read online, the page number should be wikified as a link to the online source (note: under dispute)", I don't link to b.g.c. results that include a sig parameter, since I don't know what-all that parameter is used for on Google's end. (I don't know to what extent it's being tracked, and to what extent those parameters are tied to my Google login; and, while Google doesn't seem to have an explicit acceptable use policy, I'm not sure we're supposed to pass around such links.) If you'd rather that I stop adding cites for which I'm unwilling to provide such links, I will. —RuakhTALK 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I'd add a sarcastic comment about all RFVs, but well, no. Nevermind. No, I am not asking you to stop helping. You seem to be the main person adopting DAVilla's proposed format, to date. It is off-putting to me, to not be able to follow these links (easily.) grumble, grumble, grumble. --Connel MacKenzie 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) If you search for a chunk of the citation, especially one with big words and no punctuation, wrapped in quotation marks, it's quite easy to find on Google Books. For instance, try searching for "Certainly the title was neither profound nor unique" and only one result pops up. DAVilla 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC) As I said, that is not as easy as clicking a single, direct link. And getting perfect results (as in your example) are not often guaranteed. And the desired highlighted word is not then highlighted (particularly if it appears elsewhere in the same text.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Re: "nonstandard" vs. "non-standard"; I can't believe my original template error has gained a life of its own. Checking b.g.c and other dictionaries, it should be the word "nonstandard." --Connel MacKenzie 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Label template is fixed. Category moved, but may have residual hard-coded entries. DAVilla 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Rfvfailed for pleasurisation, rfvpassed for pleasurization. --Connel MacKenzie 04:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Status unclear on pleasurization. --Connel MacKenzie 04:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Also of note: the "iffy" citation above is a self-published e-book, obviously not reviewed by an editorial staff. --Connel MacKenzie 04:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) RFV failed. Sense removed, entry redone. —RuakhTALK 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:rfvfailed