This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
As a verb, "narced" looks wrong, if only because the main verb would seem to be "narce". Narked or narcked perhaps. --Allamakee Democrat 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is already labeled as slang; it is very common in the US. Narked (3) is less than narced (80), so I don't understand why you think the British spelling rule should outweight the US spelling conventions for this US slang term. --Connel MacKenzie 05:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- First he was carping, now he's narked! :-) --Enginear 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree that it looks wrong, but there you go. I have added quotations sections at narced. Seems a little overkill for this word, but now it's attested. BTW, off topic, I put in a link to a usage instance via Google books. The citation is surely fair use; do we have policy on linking to books.google in the quote though? Jeffqyzt 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- No policy exists that I know of. I also use books.google for many citations, but make a point of trying to rely on other sources whenever convenient. In entry layout explained, (WT:ELE) the quotation format was described slightly different, but what you added is exactly the type of content desired here in RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 04:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I updated the quotes section to look like the examples in entry layout explained and Wiktionary:Quotations (sorry, I had forgotten the bold years :-( ) I also broke out the "narced on", "narced out" to a seperate usage notes block. Are those what you were referring to about the formatting differences? Or did you mean the addition of the usenet group after the "work title"? I didn't see an example of a usenet citation in those areas you mention, although they're specifically mentioned as desiriable sources due to their online archival. As a newcomer to wikis in general and wiktionary in particular, I'm finding it a bit hard to navigate to the appropriate place to refer to for formatting style; there seem to be a number of pages dealing with that, but I tend to think "I saw that in one of those pages" and have to go track them all down again, or else keep half a dozen pages open, since it's not immediately evident what's where. The "welcome" message you left in my talk page seems about the best list, actually, but it's not inclusive. Ah well, if it wasn't at least a little bit arcane, it would lose some mystique :-)
rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)