Talk:mayocide
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.
— SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fairly common Internet usage. Not citable from the respectable sources. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is used all the time online, but since it's not in any books, it's probably gonna be impossible to cite. The fact that our citation policy forces us to ignore common internet lingo is a problem that will only get worse with time. Binarystep (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The CFI policy has been modified to allow for web citations on a case-by-case basis. As for which cases we want to allow, I'm not aware of any guidelines. But see e.g. sniddy and dorcassing which were deleted after the CFI change despite the existence of ample Twitter usage, so I guess we want to hold words to a higher standard than that. And westaboo (listed above), which has been extensively cited using Tweets, whose fate remains to be seen. 70.172.194.25 23:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Have any terms actually been kept because of the CFI change? So far, it seems like no one wants to be the first person to invoke it. Binarystep (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- The fail at dorcassing was pretty unilateral by the closer, and cut off a discussion that was clearly reaching some kind of consensus towards keep, albeit with time being required to find additional acceptable online cites. I don't think it's a good example to use as a precedent of the standard. Theknightwho (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion for carbrain was also unilaterally closed despite the change to CFI. The new policy on online citations was needed a decade ago. Now that we finally have it, the prevalent mood seems to be to ignore it, and keep stonewalling against any kind of meaningful change. I rolled up my sleeves for westaboo, creeper, Nazi bar, and blorbo from my shows (still a hot word), but I'm not committing any more time or energy to a lost cause. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see apathy rather than stonewalling - nothing's stopping you, yourself, from figuring out how one of these votes would work. I've even considered doing it myself, but the dorcassing RFV was closed before I got around to the effort. As for the terms you mention, I'd love it if, for the sake of Wiktionary's image, the first word we endorse by vote is something other than a race-related term. Once we're off and running, let's wade as deep into the racial and ethnic mire as we need, but imho the first one should be WOTD-worthy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion for carbrain was also unilaterally closed despite the change to CFI. The new policy on online citations was needed a decade ago. Now that we finally have it, the prevalent mood seems to be to ignore it, and keep stonewalling against any kind of meaningful change. I rolled up my sleeves for westaboo, creeper, Nazi bar, and blorbo from my shows (still a hot word), but I'm not committing any more time or energy to a lost cause. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The CFI policy has been modified to allow for web citations on a case-by-case basis. As for which cases we want to allow, I'm not aware of any guidelines. But see e.g. sniddy and dorcassing which were deleted after the CFI change despite the existence of ample Twitter usage, so I guess we want to hold words to a higher standard than that. And westaboo (listed above), which has been extensively cited using Tweets, whose fate remains to be seen. 70.172.194.25 23:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
RFV-failed. The fails mentioned by various editors above were because there were insufficient citations, of any sort, added to the entries. RFV is based on citations, not discussion (the way RFD is). A vague reference to "fairly common internet usage" does not help. Providing some internet citations does, because it gives us something to vote on. In this case, there are NO LINKS, NO CITATIONS, I have no choice but to fail this. Kiwima (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)