Talk:dorcassing

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV discussion: February–April 2022[edit]

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.

Does this exist at all? The entry cites the Nigerian "Nairaland" message board, who later noticed our entry and mocked it: [1]. Equinox ◑ 19:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see this sense, but there's limited us of another sense from a century or more ago. Here's a little background so you can understand what I beieve is going on with the various senses: there's a biblical story (Acts 9:36-42) about a woman named Aramaic טביתא‎, which the Greek text transliterates as Ταβιθά (Tabithá), and gives the Ancient Greek translation of as δορκάς (dorkás). The story says she was known for her good works, which included making clothes for poor widows. The senses I see are refering to making or wearing of clothes, and no doubt refer back to this story.
As common nouns both the Aramaic and Ancient Greek words refer to gazelles, and it's conceivable that the Nigerian word (if it exists) might be from analogy to the animals. I would note, however, that gazelles (especially Dorcas gazelles) don't make into western sub-Saharan Africa, which is where Nigeria is. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the Nigerian term might be more directly derived from Dorcas, which appears to be a common female given name in Nigeria, particularly among the millennial generation. This, that and the other (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does appear to be the most popular theory among users of the term: [2]. 70.172.194.25 16:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you see the words "durably archived" you shouldn't assume it has anything to do with archiving, more of a backhanded way to exclude certain types of written sources. DTLHS (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I counted 578 tweets about Dorcassing, the earliest one I found was this one from 2010 [3]. I’d say clearly in widespread use (though everyone disagrees what that means). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not widespread. It may or may not be well understood at one school. Possibly the sense of flora discussed below (applying to non-plants, contrary to etymology) is widespread. China virus was widespread even though it was hard to cite at first because the kind of sources that we count as "durable" are edited by people who don't like it. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly is widespread, 578 tweets over 12 years is nothing to be sniffed at. I have no doubt at all that a term that is used so often would be understood by the VAST majority of students at this Nigerian university. We could and should clearly label it as Nigerian, even as specifically a term used in one Nigerian university, but there can be no doubt that it is used there with the meaning we’ve currently given it. The word is used widely across time and within the place, even if it is a stretch to say it’s use is wide across time and place. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So applying the new rule about online-only sources IP has invoked, I vote that the online-only sources shall contribute towards attestation requirements of this word and we shall keep it. It appears organic, like a word recognized to be used at but one African university is supposed to look like. Fay Freak (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to allow Twitter sources (etc.) then it's probably possible to attest the full verb and not just the -ing, although the -ing looks like the most used form. There are hits for "dorcas(s)ed" and "to dorcas(s)"; not much for "dorcas(s)es". If we're not going to allow online sources then it's probably impossible to attest the word at all. 70.172.194.25 22:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my vote also applies to it being moved to a verb entry. This should be a mere soft redirect as we call it, “gerund of” or the like, in spite of the inconspicuousness of such practice to the idle mind. Fay Freak (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the entry won't pass RFV. Only the Nairaland cite is there. The new online-only sources rule that Fay Freak is (very rightly) invoking here doesn't absolve us of the need to include three independent cites spanning at least a year in the entry or its Citations page.
I also don't think it makes sense to turn this into a form-of entry. That would be doing our readers a disservice. Dorcassing is a noun in itself; based on how these things usually come about, the verb is almost certainly a back-formation from the noun. This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. If someone wants to add more cites and recreate it, it should probably be added to Dorcassing, rather than the lower case version that this was. I moved the one existing cite to Citations:Dorcassing. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:dorcassing&oldid=66420815"