Talk:sensala
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ultimateria in topic RFV discussion: May–December 2021
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.
Ido, "sensorial". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, Esperanto and Ido seem to attract so many well-meaning contributors who don't understand what a "descriptive" dictionary is that I'm tempted to suggest a carte blanche to delete unsourced entries in these specific languages. Delete first, add cites later!__Gamren (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are also similar problems in Volapük, and a worrying fact is that many have been added by long-time editors who should have known better at the time. Perhaps a middle ground like "any contested entry or sense in a conlang may be deleted if not a single attestation has been provided in one week" would be workable, it could certainly prevent RFV from getting cluttered.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)- I was more thinking about the work involved -- you have to tag the page, add it to here, then someone has to fail it, delete it, and then someone else has to archive the discussion, versus just a speedy delete. But, as long as there are people willing to spend their time on this task, I guess it works. Another suggestion could be that pages on those languages don't have to be listed here; just tag, then delete after the time runs out (of course, a section here could still be made if there's actually something to discuss).__Gamren (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- For Esperanto the problem of unattestable entries is not as severe as for Ido and Volapük (or at least that was true a few years ago when I was more active – these days I don't edit conlang entries as much anymore). For Ido and Volapük some kind of drastic measures may be needed, but they should be carefully tailored to avoid deleting attestable entries by mistake. Back in 2018 the community gave me permission to delete uncited Volapük entries meeting certain specific criteria. We could consider doing something like that again for Volapük or Ido. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- A problem is that for both languages a large number of unattested entries have been created by multiple long-time editors and many of the Ido words have been imported from Dyer's dictionary (so there will probably appear hits for them on Google). Ido and Volapük are special cases because there seem to be thousands of attestable words, but the prescriptive dictionaries contain relatively few attested words and relatively many unattested words.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- A problem is that for both languages a large number of unattested entries have been created by multiple long-time editors and many of the Ido words have been imported from Dyer's dictionary (so there will probably appear hits for them on Google). Ido and Volapük are special cases because there seem to be thousands of attestable words, but the prescriptive dictionaries contain relatively few attested words and relatively many unattested words.
- For Esperanto the problem of unattestable entries is not as severe as for Ido and Volapük (or at least that was true a few years ago when I was more active – these days I don't edit conlang entries as much anymore). For Ido and Volapük some kind of drastic measures may be needed, but they should be carefully tailored to avoid deleting attestable entries by mistake. Back in 2018 the community gave me permission to delete uncited Volapük entries meeting certain specific criteria. We could consider doing something like that again for Volapük or Ido. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was more thinking about the work involved -- you have to tag the page, add it to here, then someone has to fail it, delete it, and then someone else has to archive the discussion, versus just a speedy delete. But, as long as there are people willing to spend their time on this task, I guess it works. Another suggestion could be that pages on those languages don't have to be listed here; just tag, then delete after the time runs out (of course, a section here could still be made if there's actually something to discuss).__Gamren (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Would absolutely support. --
{{victar|talk}}22:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- There are also similar problems in Volapük, and a worrying fact is that many have been added by long-time editors who should have known better at the time. Perhaps a middle ground like "any contested entry or sense in a conlang may be deleted if not a single attestation has been provided in one week" would be workable, it could certainly prevent RFV from getting cluttered.
- RFV failed. Ultimateria (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)