Talk:multigarch

Reference

A reference moved from the entry:

Meredith, Robyn, The Elephant and the Dragon: The Rise of India and China and What It Means For All of Us (N.Y.: W. W. Norton, 1st ed. hardcover 2007 →ISBN, p. 185.

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

multigarch

Seems to be only used in one book. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also used, in a similar context, at the top of this article on the history of banking. Tucoxn (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference to the above and to another newspaper (permanently recorded media), where this term appears. Tucoxn (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Blogs aren't durably archived, so it's still short. This has nothing to do with CFI, but it's a pretty lame word, all around: it seems to mean the same thing as oligarch (one of the few who rule), but even if it doesn't, the equivalent with "many" would be polyarch, and there's no such ending as -garch (oligarch is oligo- + -arch). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, neither of these use the word 'multigarch'. They both use 'multigarchy' which is a separate word. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If Wiktionary is descriptive and not prescriptive (the Oxford English Dictionary is descriptive whereas children's dictionaries are usually prescriptive), then whether a word found in use was formed in accordance with expected etymological practice is irrelevant to the reality of the word and thus what Wiktionary says about the entry's etymons, if wrong, may have to be revised. The entry may fail on another ground, but shouldn't on this unless Wiktionary prescribes etymologically proper English and bars the rest.

I wonder if the entry should be split into two (with and without the -y), but I'm not familiar with Wiktionary's practice in that regard. Print dictionaries differ in practice.

The blog post is not at archive.org as of the last hour or so and I don't have additional references (I had only the one by Meredith and another editor contributed the others).

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

When I said "This has nothing to do with CFI", it was so that the comments that followed would not be interpreted as reasons to not include the term. There are a good number of stupid terms (irregardless is probably the best example) that we include because they're in actual use. The critical question is whether we can verify, using sources that meet WT:CFI, that this is used. So far, we haven't. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed. Reference moved to talk page. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)