Talk:pockmas

Deletion debate

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

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.

---

pockmas

This is not German, but Bavarian dialect. It also uses an ad-hoc and arbitrary way to transcribe Bavarian pronunciation into the Latin alphabet. --Zeitlupe 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFV, which you may not know about. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this entry has a chance of being successfully verified, because the transcription using an o for the first vocal is ridiculous. Bavarian is not a written language, and even if we agreed on a transcription, I am not sure if such dialect words should be listed as German. But feel free to move the request, if you like. --Zeitlupe 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be barely citable from Google Groups and Books, embedded in German. See google groups:pockmas and google book:pockmas. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It has exactly three cites, and it seems to be indeed L2 German judging from the cites. It should probably get either {{rare}} or {{informal}}, or both. -- Prince Kassad 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For information, ISO recognizes a separate language called Bavarian, and its code is bar. Lmaltier 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've admitted knowing that it is in fact a word, so why should we delete it rather than correcting it? Of course cite in Bavarian using a legitimate transcription if that hasn't already been done. It's best to use {{borrowed}} for German if cited within running German text. {{informal}} is okay, though I'm not a big fan of {{rare}} which should really only apply to formal words. I've seen an instance or two of a slang term marked as {{rare}} that upon investigation turned out to not be so rare, just that most uses found were not in permanently recorded media. DAVilla 03:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it uses an ad-hoc, arbitrary way of spelling that is far from being commonly used (if at all, apart from a few cases of people mocking Bavarian dialect). In other words, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, specifically "widespread use", see WT:CFI#Attestation. But since there is some doubt, I am retracting the request for deletion and will move it to requests for verification, so bring on the quotations :-) --Zeitlupe 20:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV by the nominator Zeitlupe. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification debate

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Uses an ad-hoc, arbitrary way of spelling that is far from being commonly used (if at all, apart from a few cases of people mocking Bavarian dialect). In other words, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, specifically "widespread use". If this entry should be kept, please verify it with quotations conforming to WT:CFI#Attestation --Zeitlupe 20:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just barely cited. -- Prince Kassad 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is one citation that seems valid (the one from the book). But I don't think the two citations from usenet can be used, because they are just people playing with words and spellings. The fist one contains another (intentional?) misspelling "Bayuvaren" (which should be Bajuwaren), and the second one is not even understandable by a native German speaker: abudawi is maybe a fun spelling for Abu Dhabi, but what does "rade" mean? I don't think that usenet or chat sources where people intentionally play with spellings for fun and make up new words or spellings can be used for reference quotations. --Zeitlupe 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? Usenet does count for CFI purposes, and that people are a bit joking does not invalidate the entire quotation. Oh, fyi, "rade" is the name of the person he's replying to. -- Prince Kassad 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that they are really only joking a bit in these postings. They are intentionally butchering the language for fun. I mean, do you really think the second posting could count as a valid citation to prove that "abudawi" is a German word? --Zeitlupe 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? We're doing the same for English, after all. Of course, you would still need to find three independent citations spanning at least a year so that rules out words someone simply made up, but other words written like that do appear in Wiktionary. -- Prince Kassad 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But you don't do that for misspellings, unless they are common. A common way to transcribe this Bavarian/Austrian dialect expression would be "pack ma's", "pack mas" or "packmas", because the first vocal is pronounced like a very open 'a'. If I look at the Google hits, these expressions get >300,000 hits. In contrast, "pockmas" gets less than 200 hits and many of them are unrelated (e.g. Manga names). So this is not even a common misspelling, but extremely rare. --Zeitlupe 08:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that it is consensus here that Usenet postings are a good source for quotations. WT:Quotations: "Quotes should only be from date-able printed source, except for in the case of earliest usage where reliably date-able electronic sources (e.g. Usenet) can be used." --Zeitlupe 10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted that Usenet quotes are valid. Just ask the others. Also, if you think it's a misspelling, you should start adding the supposedly correctly-spelled variant. -- Prince Kassad 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We have used Usenet quotations to cite the existence of words. I'm not sure I agree with using it to cite spelling since posts aren't edited, but to go against precedent you would have to raise the topic in the Beer Parlour. [Edited:] I wanted to bring this back to RFD, but I'm not sure what you think the correct spelling to be. If it's a question of attesting spelling then I would agree with you, but this seems to be citing the very existence of the term. In that case Usenet is entirely applicable because it captures language how it is actually used. The stipulation is not that the source be formal but that it be durable. DAVilla 06:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition lists a question form but this is not yet cited. DAVilla 06:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the question part of the definition. What remains seems to pass RFV. - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)