Talk:vampireyness

RfV discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

vampireyness

— Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC) First citation:

The Mona the Vampire book: The Jackpot Disaster (does not yet have an article, I will make it soon).

"Mona took as long as she could. But finally, there was nothing more she could add to their vampireyness."

This is where I found the word in the first place. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 08:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you format it as we do? Year, author, publisher, ISBN, page number, that kind of stuff. GBooks gives one single hit (did not scan well, I had to retype):

• 2013, Rita Harris & Heather Harwood, Your Guide to Spotting and Outing Bloodsuckers at Work, Author House →ISBN, page 2

  But what are these secret words, you ask? For reasons that defy explanation, they're PUNS. Monstrous puns. Puns so eye-rollingly BAD, they're an abomination to the vampire's refined senses. This affront to their immortal good taste leaves them writhing in agony—exposing all manner of vampireyness. In that moment, what was once merely suspicion is now confirmed as FACT. Vampire EXPOSED!

Note however Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation vs. the slippery slope, second-to-last item. — Keφr 09:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Another one from Usenet:

• 2001, Adam James Fitzpatrick, Re: A few questions about Angel 2.21 - SPOILERS, aus.tv.buffy, Usenet

  If I remember correctly, the episode $teve's talking about also featured Nick getting caught on camera by a TV news crew, and he was unable to hypnotise her to make her forget because she had physical evidence of his vampireyness.

Seems rather rare or nonce, though. — Keφr 09:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I’m not sure aus.tv.buffy is Usenet. AFAIK only the Big 8 (Usenet) plus rec.* alt.* are Usenet. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean alt.*? Now that you mention it, I am not so sure either. If you look up original message source, you can see that it originated on an NNTP network, went through several of servers, and is probably retained by them. Not sure if this counts as "durably archived".

We need a better Usenet search engine than g.g.c, do we not? — Keφr 15:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Aye. It does its job, but too shittily for our purposes. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Our ability to cite terms is already hampered by the interpretation that the only "durable" digital media is Usenet. We don't need to exacerbate the situation further by splitting hairs over what newsgroups qualify as "durable." Usenet usage has declined sharply since the turn of the millennium, which makes Usenet an imperfect source for citing terms, as language is always developing. We'd be severely reducing its utility if we started cutting out whole swathes of newsgroups. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The question was whether a random newsgroup outside the G8 + alt.* is Usenet at all. w:Gmane runs an NNTP gateway to hundreds of mailing lists, do they qualify as Usenet now? I would rather sidestep the question by asking about durability, because that, I think, is the purpose of distinguishing Usenet as an acceptable source of citations. — Keφr 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we require editors to ensure that all books they cite are printed on archival-quality paper while we're at it? Imposing this type of arbitrary litmus test — especially when "durability" is already a vague and subjective concept — isn't going to help improve Wiktionary's quality or reliability. It's just going to confuse and frustrate editors trying to gather citations, and lead to unproductive bickering here at RfV. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue many times in the BP, and I've even raised it myself at least twice. However, RFV is not the place to rant about it. --WikiTiki89 16:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ranting aside, haven't we found and cited three sources already, plus mine which is 4? Doesn't that mean the term is now verified? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I closed it as passed. Can you add your citation to the entry (with the author name, year, etc.)? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)