Talk:super-ginormous
Request for verification[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.
I see little evidence of use on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is little evidence but maybe in uses as well. — This comment was unsigned.
- If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary. Why waste time on it? You are better off to find the usage first before you take the trouble to make a good entry. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is a waste of time of doing so. You can decide whatever you feel about the word "superginormous". What do you mean by "If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary."? It was used.... please search for Google. :/ But ONLY you can decide, not me. — This comment was unsigned.
- 120 hits for a word on the entire web is basically nothing. In contrast there are 930,000 hits for "ginormous" and 106,000,000 for "big". Numerous misspellings and nonsense words get more than 120 hits. A longer word, "internationalism", gets 970,000.
- You could find the citations at google books, google news, google scholar, or google groups. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cited, I think; there appear to be exactly three CFI-meeting uses (in our standard corpora, anyway), spanning just about exactly one year. -- Visviva 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Now its passing depends on whether we accept a cite of "super-ginormous" as relevant for "superginormous". I could go either way on that, I suppose, but haven't knowingly accepted alternative forms for attestation purposes in the past. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. I think we all may and should leave its definitions the way it is and all it needs now is an alternative form of superginormous. — This comment was unsigned.
- Each entry is to be cited separately. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. — This comment was unsigned.
- I don't think cites for an alternative form should count as cites for the main form. As it stands, I like the sound of the word, but it needs to be deleted- one cite is hyphenated, thus ruining everything IMHO. Teh Rote 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever, I'm done here. Happy citing! BTW, there's a new cite for the hyphenated version. -- Visviva 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hyphenation of prefixes is a matter of personal taste, and as super-ginormous is the same word as superginormous quotes with or without the hyphen should be fine. If we are to keep this (which we probably should), it possibly wants marking as
{{rare}},{{informal}},{{neologism}}or all of the above. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hyphenation of prefixes is a matter of personal taste, and as super-ginormous is the same word as superginormous quotes with or without the hyphen should be fine. If we are to keep this (which we probably should), it possibly wants marking as
- Based on the three citations: Should both entries appear? Should the one with one cite be a redirect to the one with two cites? Should there be a cite on the redirect page? DCDuring TALK 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well it is only one word - just because someone decided it'd look neater hyphenated does not make it different - so if we keep one we should keep both. The standard "Wiktionary way" to do this is to use "
{{alternative form of}}" or something similar. I reckon we should hard-redirect the Citations page though (if not the entries too</troll>). Conrad.Irwin 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well it is only one word - just because someone decided it'd look neater hyphenated does not make it different - so if we keep one we should keep both. The standard "Wiktionary way" to do this is to use "
- Based on the three citations: Should both entries appear? Should the one with one cite be a redirect to the one with two cites? Should there be a cite on the redirect page? DCDuring TALK 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Open question: Are alternative forms shown one word (needing three citations or either form) or two (needing three citations of each form)? If this isn't decided here, it will have to go to WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted the hyphenated form as unattestable: it's been almost a year now. This leaves us with (deprecated template usage) superginormous, one of whose three citations is hyphenated. I suppose we need a third unhyphenated one to close this. Equinox ◑ 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
RFV failed, both entries deleted. I've moved the citations to Citations:superginormous, with a redirect from Citations:super-ginormous. Anyone who finds a third cite for superginormous, please let me know and I'll restore the entry. —RuakhTALK 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)