Talk:Elevatorgate
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: January–February 2019
coffee or hotel room
[edit]I have just made an edit which has been reverted without explanation, so in the spirit of bold revert discuss I have started a discussion here. Any reason why I should not restore my edit? WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Inline references in definitions are not the standard here, and a YouTube video is certainly not a sufficient source of its own. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 21:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
I made an edit to Elevatorgate which has been rolled back. This is a contentious issue in the English speaking world, and it seems odd for Wiktionary to take the line of the current article, especially if the BLP policy applies here. WereSpielChequers (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- A Youtube video seems inappropriate as a reference. I don't know what a "BLP" policy is. Irregardless, this page is for requests for printed uses of the term in durably archived media. DTLHS (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- As far as verification goes, there were already two cites. I added two more to the citations page. One of them is not in 2015, so we have a span of more than a year (although most of the cites one finds are from 2015). There are also some other cites that are more recent, but they are rather mention-y. Still, I would call this cited, although I suspect that is not why @WereSpielChequers put in the request for verification. Kiwima (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers FYI, we do have another venue if you would like to discuss the content or tenor of the definition, that would be the Tea Room. I can see your point of view that the current wording makes the invitation more innocuous than it perhaps was. Also, striking. - TheDaveRoss 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I think this entry and a lot of similar ones should just be relocated to "Appendix:Snowclones". — SGconlaw (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers FYI, we do have another venue if you would like to discuss the content or tenor of the definition, that would be the Tea Room. I can see your point of view that the current wording makes the invitation more innocuous than it perhaps was. Also, striking. - TheDaveRoss 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- As far as verification goes, there were already two cites. I added two more to the citations page. One of them is not in 2015, so we have a span of more than a year (although most of the cites one finds are from 2015). There are also some other cites that are more recent, but they are rather mention-y. Still, I would call this cited, although I suspect that is not why @WereSpielChequers put in the request for verification. Kiwima (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)