Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Alright, so this term happens to be a mediaeval borrowing, so we need three cites. The problem is that there's basically nothing out there that isn't referring to the w:Tacuinum Sanitatis. So that's one, but that leaves two more to be found in some Renaissance manuscripts or something. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No it's not universally agreed that we need three citations, the CFI passage says 'For terms in extinct languages: usage in at least one contemporaneous source.' We didn't agree that contemporaneous means 'while the language is living'. I'd just consider this already cited, unless someone can add the definition to contemporaneous of 'of a language, living; not extinct'. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Except that we had a discussion in the BP about this, and nothing is universally agreed, but this seemed to have widespread support for Latin, at least: anything mediaeval to modern needs three cites, like hamaxostichus. We're going to get a lot of bad Latin entries if we follow your wide interpretation of "contemporaneous". --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily like it very much, but I feel uneasy about deliberately misinterpreting the vote on the matter for our own convenience. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing holy about votes. The truth is that every rule around here is built on consensus. It's only consensus that makes us follow our own votes, and it's consensus that decides how we interpret them.
With that said, if it bothers you, you can certainly make a vote to fix it. I'm fully willing to help with wording, etc., and if it seems to solve the problem, to support it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough on both points. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's a type of attestation you don't see often: Italian has taccuino, with a related sense, and Venetian has tacuin. If either is indeed a descendant, that would be pretty strong evidence of usage in a generic sense at some point. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting (I only knew of the Italian, so it's good to see the Venetian with one c), and I don't deny that they're descendants that ought to be listed, but only if you can actually attest this entry. We still require 2 more primary source quotes in Latin. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There's always the possibility of an independent borrowing of the Arabic word directly into Italian, so it would need some verification from an etymological source. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, a true descendant form is circumstantial evidence of widespread use, which would bypass the 3-cite rule. Establishing the nature of the connection between the Latin form and the Italian and Venetian forms is the tricky part.Chuck Entz (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
But it's not evidence of widespread use! One extremely influential book (the Tac. San.) can easily lead to more general terminology in a lect like Tuscan, and thence modern Italian and Venetian. Yet in Latin, it still may have not been used for anything beyond that book. It's not like mediaeval Latin is so hard to find online - there's a reason that bgc isn't turning up anything without "sanitatis" or a scanno thereof. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)