Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RfV February 2013[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

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

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.

Ido. I think we have on the order of thousands of unciteable Ido words; someone needs to go on a purge. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can purge; it seems a little obstructive to do that when you have no one who can cite.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Dunno what you mean by "no one who can cite". I agree that constructed languages should be subject to the same criteria as other languages; this needs to be used in an Ido text, not just 'if anyone were to use the word, this is what it would be'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I found an Ido listserv post that uses it, but I doubt I'll locate three durably archived uses. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it really three for Ido? How much durably archived Ido is there? We have the power to change it to one, remember. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It already is one. All languages are considered LDLs unless they appear on the list of WDLs, which Ido doesn't. —Angr 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ido does appear on WT:WDL; line 8, "approved constructed languages."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean all conlangs that we accept here are considered WDLs? That seems to raise the bar unfairly high for them. I'd have thought Esperanto is the only well documented conlang. —Angr 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Purges in languages that we know are easy; someone can actually look things up. If we don't have an editor fluent in or willing to work in the language, then you could get rid of a lot of citable vocabulary quickly. Ido is probably a hard language to cite, since it's on the WDL and its heyday was probably in the 1920s and 1930s, where Google doesn't display.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As the author of the "approved conlangs" clause, I'd like to explain myself. Conlangs that have been approved for the mainspace have only been ones with followings — that is, auxlangs. Most auxlangs work by creating more and more terms, enough to fill every gap, by adding prefixes and suffixes (Esperanto), regulated shifts from one phone to another (Afrihili), declining excessively (Volapük), or by compounding idiomatically (Toki Pona). Ido may be documented no more than an LDL, but because it has word-producing superpowers most LDLs don't have, and because it has followers who will add terms in it with dedication that most LDLs don't have, it is a danger in my mind. Sure, my logic has holes, but I just want to prevent an abuse of Wiktionary space. So, yes — I set the bar higher for conlangs, but I did it for a reason. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that policy has a side effect which makes it easy to impoverish Wiktionary of conlang equivalents of technical terms, like formal words for small bones rarely mentioned in everyday conversation. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It only deprives Wiktionary of terms that are used exceedingly rarely, or not at all, and are thus basically neologisms. It seems that zigomatala is a prime example of such a word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems no more neologistic to me than its (also unattested) English equivalent zygomatic. Just uncommon. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Since when is zygomatic unattested? It may not have citations added to the entry, but a Google Books search turns up lots of uses. I even remember it from a Physical Anthropology class I took a couple of decades ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant unattested here, not unattestable. I fully expect it would pass RFV if anyone put us to the trouble of verifying it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)