Talk:carbrain

Another sense cited?

@J3133 I believe Kiwima may have found three citations for a sense other than the one that failed RFV - could you please double-check? This, that and the other (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Indeed, the sense at RFV was removed and new senses were added, but the RFV template was not removed. J3133 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@J3133 Thanks, all good now. This, that and the other (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–April 2022

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.

---

carbrain

There are 3,480 hits on Google Books, but once you remove the (uppercase) Scottish surname, references to the "brain" of a car, and OCR confused by multiple columns, there's nothing left. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's used among the active transportation crowd on Twitter. It would be citable as a hot word from Twitter if we want to do that (not saying we should). This, that and the other (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This shouldn't have been deleted. Online sources like Twitter can be used as citations. That provision was explicitly added to CFI as the result of a recent vote. What's less clear is what the requirement for reaching consensus through "discussion lasting at least two weeks" would mean in practice. Well, I've been citing things off Twitter for at least two weeks now without objection. Time to stop stonewalling on this. We need all the tools we can get in our toolbox. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone has to make the effort to start a vote. In this case I didn't think the word was valuable enough to spend the effort, particularly as it sees extremely niche use and it would have only been a "hot word" with low potential to hang around for a year (according to my crystal ball). I was going to start a vote for dorcassing, but someone closed the RFV before I could find the time to find cites and set it up.

Also I haven't seen a RFV being passed using Twitter cites yet. Some are sitting here, open, presumably awaiting a vote or the finding of more durable sources. This, that and the other (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-added without qualifying quotations

@Ioaxxere: When a term fails RfV, it is customary not to reinstate it without also adding citations. There is one relevant quote on the Citations page but it doesn't have the right spacing (or capitalization). Even social media citations would be better than nothing, although I'm not sure whether per CFI that would require a vote. 70.172.194.25 02:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I did not notice the RFV discussion. I've added a few citations at car brain. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! :) (I also notice that you changed the gloss here from "Someone who believes..." to "a supposed condition...", presumably because the second is more easily attestable?) 70.172.194.25 19:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, both senses are in use ([1]) but I was able to cite the "supposed condition" sense for now. I expect to be able to come back to these in about a year when the urbanist movement has gained more steam. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)