Talk:ПОС
@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89 Is this actually an acronym (i.e. pronounced ПОС not пэ-о-эс), and if so is it declinable or indeclinable? Benwing2 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's indeclinable but pron can go both ways, I think. I'm going to RFD it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
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.
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why would we delete this? Unless you give a reasonable rationale, I vote keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's a local abbreviation with little value for Russians and Russian learners, for which there could be hundreds other. I don't have a strong rationale at the moment. I'll wait for more input and let the community decide. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why not send it to RfV, then? bd2412 T 14:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because I don't have doubts that the terms exists. I'll send, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why not send it to RfV, then? bd2412 T 14:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's a local abbreviation with little value for Russians and Russian learners, for which there could be hundreds other. I don't have a strong rationale at the moment. I'll wait for more input and let the community decide. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Definition: Pskov Regional Assembly. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- It does look suspiciously like a word in a language. Reasonable doubt test? If there's reasonable doubt that it's a word in a language, keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why is this a word in a language and Verizon is not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Verizon is - if it used attributively to identify the characteristic of a thing other than as a trademark. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- If Verizon is only used literally to refer to the company or its services, why is it not a word in a language while ПОС is a word in a language, especially given that ПОС probably has no "attributive"/figurative/non-literal use? Like, both Verizon and ПОС each refer to a human organization, one commercial and one non-commercial. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Dan. It seems silly that a derived word of an organization can pass CFI, but the organization itself can fail it (I know others respond to this anomaly by saying we should fail both; I say keep both). Purplebackpack89 15:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Start a vote then. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Equinox I started a BP discussion about this "donut hole" at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Filling the CFI donut hole Purplebackpack89 15:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- If Dan's comment was aimed at me, I'm saying I think it is a word in a language. But I don't want to weight in too heavily on a debate about a Russian word. Even the nominator's unsure if we should delete this or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Equinox I started a BP discussion about this "donut hole" at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Filling the CFI donut hole Purplebackpack89 15:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Start a vote then. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Verizon is - if it used attributively to identify the characteristic of a thing other than as a trademark. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why is this a word in a language and Verizon is not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- It does look suspiciously like a word in a language. Reasonable doubt test? If there's reasonable doubt that it's a word in a language, keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: No real explanation how this violates SOP or any other aspect of CFI. If it is truly a very uncommon regionalism, it would fail RfV, but commonality isn't really an RfD matter. Purplebackpack89 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, per Purple B. and because I think we should keep acronyms in general. Maybe a vote on 'treat all entity as we treat personal names' might not be a bad idea. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- RFD kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- A few cites?
- http://pln-pskov.ru/health/subject/1015.html
- http://www.psksu.ru/project/index/3462
- http://kprf.pskov.ru/index.php/201601213225/poslednie_novosti/_otchyot_o_rabote_fraktsii_kprf_v_pskovskom_oblastnom_sobranii_deputatov.html
- Pretty sure these are the same POS. I did also find other POS'es, probably not the same one. AliHautala (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- RFV Failed. - TheDaveRoss 15:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)