Talk:r-slurred

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

r-slurred

Not that many hits; nothing on Usenet from what I can see, and most hits are related to pronunciation. Ironically I saw this word for the first time a few days ago, but not on a durably archived source. Also, I feel that it should still have a derogatory tag, but I'm not 100% sure. AG202 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It's on Twitter, but given the way the ongoing poll is trending that may not be enough. 98.170.164.88 02:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion of there being "not that many hits". A quick Reddit search [1] turns up 6400 hits across multiple subreddits, with the earliest [2] dating to April 2019. A new Reddit post with r-slurred is made every few hours [3] and a new Twitter post roughly every day [4]. I would say that this word definitely falls under "clearly widespread use", meaning that 3 durably archived sources are not necessary.

Ioaxxere (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Not that many hits on places that actually fit the criteria for CFI. Also, it may have to be classified as a hot word depending on how recent it is. The clearly widespread use clause is very rarely invoked and does not apply here considering how it’s only used in online fora that don’t even currently fit CFI. AG202 (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the widespread use clause if you only apply it when the term would meet CFI anyway? Ioaxxere (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere It was intended to prevent people from clogging rfv with bad-faith nominations of common words like dog, cat and the where no one had bothered as yet to add cites to the entry. When a term is nominated for rfv, it will be deleted if cites aren't provided- so people would be wasting their time finding and writing up cites just to keep basic vocabulary. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: Unfortunately, that's not how our CFI works. In theory, a word could be used millions of times online and never quality for an entry here if it's not used in print media and/or Usenet. Meanwhile, words that have only been used three times in all of recorded history are allowed as long as they appear in legacy media. IMO, this is patently ridiculous, but it's unlikely to ever change given that our recent vote to allow online cites on a case-by-case basis is in the process of being all but overturned only a few months later (despite the number of high-quality entries created since the initial vote passed). Binarystep (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Twitter vote is at 11-8 in favour. Does that mean it's going to pass? Ioaxxere (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

6400 hits on Reddit is not widespread, 6.4 million hits would perhaps meet that standard. - TheDaveRoss 15:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

When I use the "next" function of the search, I get 298 hits on Reddit. That is quite significant use, much more than 3 quotations. Oldest ones are from Jan 2020, from what I can see. This might arguably meet the intended stadard of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived; Twitter will not pass for 1-year-spanning 3-attestation but that does not mean it is now forbidden altogether.

As for "clearly widespread use", there is no clear interpretation of what it means; different editors will interpret it differently. The RFV header says "Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)" Thus, you may claim clearly widespread use, and others may dispute it, with no recourse to objective criteria. The quoted passage is in contradiction with "When a term is nominated for rfv, it will be deleted if cites aren't provided". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As is, RFV-failed. Quotes should be moved if wanted to be kept. AG202 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

CFI Vote for r-slurred

1. Keep per consistent social media use, above-average page views (consistent 70-80 monthly) and non-obvious meaning. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Keep. Binarystep (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed (2-0) Ioaxxere (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023

See Talk:r-slurred#RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023.