Talk:juppi
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.
Finnish. Rfv-sense: "Dasylirion". While officially accepted, this is one of those names that sees basically no use in real life. You know it's bad when the only uses of this word are a small aside on Wikipedia and a WordPress blog. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what do you mean by officially accepted? Is this a situation where the entry is worth keeping because XYZ official organisation accepts it, but with a usage note that it sees practically no actual use? Theknightwho (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Typically what that means is some major dictionary lists it, but when one of us editors check, it's not in use. Vininn126 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- In this case, it refers to a database of taxonomic and vernacular names (in Finnish) that is widely considered authoritative. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is it worth keeping the entry but stating the real-world situation, then? If that database is widely considered authoritative, it feels informative to say that in this particular instance no/very little actual usage occurs. That's assuming it won't otherwise pass RFV, of course. Theknightwho (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- To me it's all but evident it won't survive RFV.
{{no entry}}would be an option, but since there is another etymology, I don't think it can be used. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - You are quite the staunch keeper, aren't you? I, too, tend to be more of an inclusionist, but just because some word is in a major dictionary doesn't mean we should keep it. I frequently do not add e.g. Polish words just because they are in some dictionary. I check their SOPpiness and at attestability first. It seems these senses will most likely fail. Vininn126 (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I always ask myself the question "is any value added by keeping this entry?" That doesn't mean I think we should keep it without qualifiers, of course. The problem is that (from the perspective of a casual user) a deleted entry is often indistinguishable from an entry that no-one's got around to adding yet. Theknightwho (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- To me it's all but evident it won't survive RFV.
- Is it worth keeping the entry but stating the real-world situation, then? If that database is widely considered authoritative, it feels informative to say that in this particular instance no/very little actual usage occurs. That's assuming it won't otherwise pass RFV, of course. Theknightwho (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, where do they have the term from if the etymology is unknown and it “sees no use”? A dialect term? (It is a North American plant but one can buy it in Europe to artificially keep it.) Or do those officials in Finnish make up random or arbitrary strings to denote plants? (There are some attestation problems with recently introduced plants known by vernacular names to gardeners—always, as the supply of new organisms does not cease.) Fay Freak (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt most people know where it comes from. Someone suggested the name and it was approved. There is apparently a book source for the term but it costs up to 60 euros and is not available at all in digital form. I don't think it's available in most libraries either. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- RFV-deleted (but see Citations:juppi). — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)