Talk:seoléadach

RFV discussion: October 2017–February 2018

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

seoléadach

Irish by Embryomystic, from 2010‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Listed in The New English–Irish Dictionary, which I consider sufficient as Irish is an LDL. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's only sufficient if "should" at WT:CFI#Number of citations is a suggestion and not a requirement as there is no "list of materials [...]". But well, as of WT:About Irish#Sources's statement "[...] entries are considered sufficiently verified if a single mention (not necessarily use) is found", it's just a suggestion...
At least it makes Wiktionary talk:About Norn, Wiktionary talk:About Old High German, Wiktionary talk:About Burgundian unnecessary, and makes sildin (which likely was created based on a mentioning without having a list) and some OHG terms clearly atteststable. -84.161.48.68 14:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is "a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" for Irish, it's just not written down anywhere; it's in my head. (Not very useful for other people there, I admit, but it's better than nothing at all.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That link lists "seolbhrat" rather than seoléadach, as far as I can see. If you mean this[1], it lists "sailcloth, s.Éadach m seoil.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Sorry, I have the wrong link above. The one I meant is [2]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you wrote that list down in WT:AGA#Sources. Keeping it in one's head seems to signal "I don't want anyone else to help", though I am sure that is not your intent.__Gamren (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't. I keep it in my head partially because I haven't gotten around to writing it down yet and partially because I worry that writing it down will lead other people to think it's exhaustive, which it probably won't be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)