Talk:hyperfield
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: March 2018
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.
"A hypernymically higher order field." Suspicious since this phrase does not occur in a Google search. Equinox ◑ 14:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- While I can find no evidence of this definition, there is definitely evidence for three missing definitions: (1) a field in a hyperstructure, (2) something in physics, and (3) something in Science fiction. Ordinarily, I would fully research those and add them, but I am short on time this morning. Maybe later. Kiwima (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, now, with more time, I have added two definitions - the field in the hyperstructure and the something in physics were both examples of the existing definition, but there was a region of the visual field related to multiple hypercolumns and the use in science fiction. Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- While I can find no evidence of this definition, there is definitely evidence for three missing definitions: (1) a field in a hyperstructure, (2) something in physics, and (3) something in Science fiction. Ordinarily, I would fully research those and add them, but I am short on time this morning. Maybe later. Kiwima (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Speedied. I checked the IP that added this, and, sure enough, it geolocates to Greece. This idiot likes to make up English words based on a very poor understanding of the relationship between Greek and English, then pretend that anyone who doesn't understand them is ignorant. Any similarity to words and senses that are actually attested is purely coincidental. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)