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

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion discussion[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

Definition: "Attributive form of alpine chough, noun."

In other words, a noun used attributively. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this might not even meet CFI (who would say e.g. "an alpine-chough call" rather than "the call of an..."?). To me, entries like this are redundant because the hyphenation is mandated by grammar/orthography. It's like having an entry at Cheesecake, "sentence-initial form of cheesecake". Equinox 10:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Such words appear in books, look like adjectives, and will be looked up by people who want to know what they mean. (That said, I'm not sure this one, in particular, is attested. But this is not the forum for that.)​—msh210 (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Redirect. That should address the look-up need for such terms. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Seems like 3:1. DCDuring TALK 04:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We should at least change it to 'noun'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification discussion[edit]

From alpine-chough at Wiktionary:Requests for verification:

Keep tidy.svg

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 re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

From RFD. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Proposed outcome: out of scope of RFV. The hyphenated form exists. Whether it should be ranked as adjective cannot be decided using the RFV process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Retracting: it is not obvious that the hyphenated form actually exists, that is, is actually found in use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
      Right. 'Tis why I RFVed it. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
      And although this will be a 'moot' point if this spelling proves to be unattested in any POS, it's worth correcting you: RFV is regularly used to determine whether or not something can be attested as an adjective or only as a noun. (For some tests of adjectivity, see WT:English adjectives.) - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
      These tests of adjectivity are inconclusive, since none of the criteria used in WT:English adjectives are necessary for adjectives. I do recall we had some RFV nominations to test adjectivity and I do recall being too tired to protest. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
RFV-failed, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)