Talk:strikingthrough

In case anyone is confused, I am User:88.111.94.233 (the anonymous editor who created this entry). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tea room discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

I think the citations are all erroneous scans of striking through (two words). I can't find any of them on Google Books to check. Equinox ◑ 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Found the Bierce and the witches quotes, both as "striking through" (though the Bierce might be from another edition). It doesn't look real to me, and if I saw such a thing I would assume a typo. Pingku 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would love to have this one deleted. But strikethrough as a verb passed rfv in July 2007. (see the talk page). I still think it is ugly, even if it does have verification. -- ALGRIF talk 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The infinitive may have passed RFV but I doubt this inflection can do so. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verb inflections don't have to pass anything, unless claiming a defective verb or strong verb. And that would only apply to past and past participle, I think. -- ALGRIF talk 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally we don't separately RFV forms, but if someone does then I think the burden of proof is on those who claim it exists. All the more so in a case like this, where the form is so... odd.​—msh210℠ 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, move to RFV, ditto first, second and third bases that I created a few days ago without realizing they are very very rare. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV

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.

---

Previous discussion: Talk:strikingthrough.

This had four cites. I was able to find three of them; all three actually used "striking through", so I've removed them from the entry. (Confirmatory URLs are in the edit history.) I couldn't find the fourth one, and am not inclined to credit it any further than the other three, especially since, with all respect to the citer, that quotation's metadata suggest a bit of shoddiness. (For example, the "New York State Federation of Chapters" in question must be the New York State Federation of Chapters of the Council for Exceptional Children.) So as far as I'm concerned, we need three cites that demonstrably use this form. When it comes right down to it, a typed-up quotation in an entry is hearsay, not evidence. ;-)   —Ruakh_TALK 14:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Groups has this one. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. Did you mean strikethrough? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the subject line, viz. "track changes set to underline for insertion but strikingthrough". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if both the microsoft.public.word.docmanagement and the "State Federation of Chapters" quotations are valid, the word fails RFV for lack of a third quotation. - -sche (discuss) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)