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

Well if Wikipedia says it's a word, then it's a word. -- 11:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This entry has more citations than most. So, like it or not, it meets our criteria. --Richardb 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why weren't they in the entry? (See also: talk:bouncebackability/Citations.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk from Citations_talk:[edit]

Look, it's a crap word, but it's being used, in newspapers, the BBC, ABC in Australia, major companies etc. Admittedly mostly for headlines etc I've gone through the pain of looking up these citations 'cos I'm sick of some people taking an eleite and high and mighty view of what should or should not be in Wiktionary. Or is it just 'cos it's not used in the USA. :-)

I don't want to do more of this just to counter Connel, so, pleeeease, stop Rfv'ing the damn word.--Richardb 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It was not because it is not used in the USA (although that does explain why I've never heard it) but rather because the citations on the page were not entered as citations, and the "references" seemed bogus upon inspection. Had the citations been entered in the first place...
By the way, as a matter of protocol, the person adding the citations to a disputed term usually is not the same as the person who removes the RFV tag.
--Connel MacKenzie T C 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

RfVed long ago, but RfV tag was removed by creator of the entry. Some web use, but I didn't check all of the purported citations at Citations:bouncebackability. OTOH, whether or not citable, it seems to be evidence of the productivity of ability. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be enough citations that use rather than mention the word in google books:"bouncebackability". I propose this nomination is withdrawn, or the citations are manually added by the nominator. What was RFVed is the whole entry rather than a single sense. --Dan Polansky 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Too busy doing things I enjoy. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you feel too busy citing RFVs, and too busy closing and archiving old RFD and RFV discussions, you'd better feel too busy adding new nominations to RFD and RFV. You are using someone else's resources to serve your purposes, without taking due part in carrying the cost. --Dan Polansky 15:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I get the hostility, but not so sure about the meaning. Assuming that you mean "too busy to cite" (virtually the opposite of "too busy citing"), I let those with superior judgment and knowledge who haven't participated as advocate in the discussion, close things. I tend to be an advocate. These roles seem quite incompatible to me. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
My mistake with "too busy citing RFVs"; my English sometimes fails me. The roles of arguing a case and closing the case are not necessarily incompatible, but I'll leave this unargued, because of the following. Even if you forego closing nominations in which you have been involved (a poor idea IMHO), you may still be closing nominations in which you have not been involved. I still rest my case that you should better withdraw this nomination of "bouncebackability", as the thesis that there are no attesting quotations that meet CFI is no longer plausible per google books:"bouncebackability". --Dan Polansky 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently, at least I understood you accurately.
  1. I was posting an RfV that had been improperly removed long ago without there being properly formatted citations in the entry. The feuding admins simply abandoned the struggle, leaving the citations mess, which no one, including you, cleaned up, though the rfc tag was removed once the citations mess was moved to the citations page.
  2. After sorting out the mess, the ill-formatted citations yielded 3 good uses, but spanning 20 days. Are there good current uses in durably archived media dated after December 10 or 12, 2004?
  3. I'd be perfectly happy if we let Collins have an exclusive on the word.
  4. I haven't noticed any rush to add translations to this.
  5. If you don't like my work ethic here at Wiktionary, TFB. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow. There's a whole article on this word, in the SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, publshed by The Slovak Association for the Study of English. (I can't vouch for it, natch.)​—msh210 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting a little frustrated trying to determine whether online news site hits are durably archived. Even the sites of major print newspapers do not make it clear whether the article appeared in print. The Guardian seems to be an exception. Are even BBC news articles "durably archived"? A link from The Times' went dead within two weeks of my finding it. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
One sense cited. Other sense RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo in citation?[edit]

Is the Anette Ratz citation correct? It has "I'ma" (I'm a) written as a single unspaced word several times. I can't find the source online. Equinox 12:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The original doesn't seem to be findable, let alone durably archived, let alone correct. DCDuring TALK 14:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Accessible from Germany? DCDuring TALK 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)