Talk:≡
Verfication debate[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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 readd this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfvsense: (computing, APL) "Used monadically to determine the nested depth of a structure and dyadically to test two structures for identicalness". We don't accept citations from programming languages per the CFI, so I'm wondering if this APL sense has any English (or other allowed language) usage (has to be used not just mentioned). w:APL_(programming_language) notation was based on the book A programming language. There could be citations in there, but I wasn't able to search it for any APL symbols. If there's no English usage, the APL sense of ε and the whole APL block of Unicode symbols (U+2336237A) could be up for the chopping block. Bequw → ¢ • τ 15:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 If I copyandpaste the headword into our searchbox I get no search results, though I do get the message that there is an entry. So, search misses the Appendix (even when I have asked for the search to cover all of our namespaces). Cutting and pasting into Google (even Web) doesn't yield any results. This raises a few questions:
 If this kind of headword is worth having, then the only way it can be found is via the entry. The Appendix is no help unless one knows in advance that it exists, even if one has the wit to search Appendix space (which would exclude all but a few nonadmins). Is this not, then, in effect a request to eliminate all potential for users to access this class of content?
 How is one supposed to efficiently check usage for something like this? Is there some combination of browser settings and search engines that could help?
 What is the usecase for someone benefiting from this kind of entry?
 If a user like me can't do much with this and has such basic questions, why is this even an RfV matter, rather than a BP matter? Or a Wiktionary:About Translingual matter?
 I do appreciate the matter being raised, because it seems to be a curious bit of hyperspecialization that makes us a host for purported lexical content of no clear lexical utility due to lack of accessibility. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 I doubt it occurs in text other than program code. But plenty of mathematical symbols don't occur in text other than mathematical proofs, formulae, etc. Perhaps these things would be best in an appendix of some kind? Equinox ◑ 20:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 But you can't find them without knowing specifically where to look. Our software is no help. If we found the short names for these by which they might be referred to in a conversation, that would be wonderful. I suppose putting them in an appendix is like putting them in deep storage until technology provides us a solution. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 I don't think the searchability is really an RFV matter. The closest to standard names may be the names given in Unicode (for which we already have an appendix), but they're not all especially perfect or concise. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 This will probably fail RfV, but it needs 30 days. To me it looks like a thing that needs a name rather than a name of a thing or action or attribute. Nor does it fit in anything other than Symbol. But the symbols most clearly deserving of inclusion both have names and are used to represent language. This seems deficient in both regards. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 I don't think the searchability is really an RFV matter. The closest to standard names may be the names given in Unicode (for which we already have an appendix), but they're not all especially perfect or concise. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 Mathematical notation is a bit different than programming languages though I find it hard to pinpoint sharp, qualitative differences. Math can be interspersed more readily in prose. Mathematical notation is also much more standardized, with practically everyone in the domain communicating in mutually intelligible ways whereas in the domain of programming there is much more unintelligibility. Maybe a CFI exemption should be given to mathematically notation, otherwise strict verification might be hard. There might, however, be a slipper slope of Math  Algorithms  Pseudo Code  Source Code, which I'm not sure now how to manage. Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 But really, this is mathematical notation. APL notation was created for math first, and then adopted on a computer.Prosfilaes 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RFVFailed. I moved the APL sense of this symbol and the others mentioned above (as there's little possibility that the other symbols can possibly be verified) to Appendix:APL. If some are citable, feel free to move them back into the main namespace. Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)