Talk:kunstig intelligensernes
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.
I think this and similar entries may be wrong - should be kunstige I think. It is best not to enter inflections for entries like this, as the unwary can get in all sorts of tangles; kunstig and intelligens can be referred to instead. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There's actually no Danish entry for kunstig, but that can soon be rectified. DonnanZ (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. That's my bad. I actually should've put "kunstige" instead of "kunstig". Just go ahead and delete it. I'll put an RFD. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you read the first paragraph properly. DonnanZ (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did. I usually enter inflections for nouns. But this time I forgot to add the "e" after "kunstig" in the inflections, as an adjective becomes plural with its plural noun. Thanks for pointing it out. kunstig intelligens is not an SoP, therefore it hypothetically must have an entry here. Same with all its inflections; its inflections are also not SoP, therefore they must be entries. There's nothing left to discuss here. If you don't like the way that Wiktionary deals with locutional nouns like these, please discuss it in the Wiktionary:Beer parlour. I'll create kunstig soon. It's on my list. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- The entry for kunstig intelligens is still wrong, I'll leave to you to work out why. You could have saved yourself a lot of bother by not recording and entering the inflections. Yes, it's a valid entry apart from the balls-ups, and I have added a reference. DonnanZ (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you're saying. Danes would say den kunstige intelligens right? Philmonte101 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Although, how in the world would we make an entry for that? Philmonte101 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, de kunstige intelligenser. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have RFD'd all of them except for the correct ones. The only ones in this case that would hypothetically be correct forms are kunstige intelligenser and kunstig intelligens'. Perhaps we should bring this locutional issue up in the Tea Room. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you have to ask questions like this, you have no business mass-creating entries. For a dictionary, wrong information is worse than no information at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- The entry for kunstig intelligens is still wrong, I'll leave to you to work out why. You could have saved yourself a lot of bother by not recording and entering the inflections. Yes, it's a valid entry apart from the balls-ups, and I have added a reference. DonnanZ (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did. I usually enter inflections for nouns. But this time I forgot to add the "e" after "kunstig" in the inflections, as an adjective becomes plural with its plural noun. Thanks for pointing it out. kunstig intelligens is not an SoP, therefore it hypothetically must have an entry here. Same with all its inflections; its inflections are also not SoP, therefore they must be entries. There's nothing left to discuss here. If you don't like the way that Wiktionary deals with locutional nouns like these, please discuss it in the Wiktionary:Beer parlour. I'll create kunstig soon. It's on my list. Philmonte101 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you read the first paragraph properly. DonnanZ (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- And how do you know there's a plural anyway? Do you check it out? DonnanZ (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Donnanz I checked before even making the entry. I found https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22kunstige+intelligenser%22 Philmonte101 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have now created a Tea Room discussion about this. Please see the discussion at [1] and direct further discussion of this there. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- RFV failed on 16 July 2016 by Chuck Entz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)