Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Old threads have been archived to Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion/Archive 1, Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion/Archive 2 and Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion/Archive 3.


Proposed changes to the CFI can be made and discussed at Wiktionary:Editable CFI.

Subpages of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and its talk page:

Criteria for inclusion/Brand names Criteria for inclusion/Editable Criteria for inclusion/Editnotice
Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes Criteria for inclusion/Language-specific Criteria for inclusion/Languages with limited online documentation
Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages Criteria for inclusion/attestation

Criteria for inclusion/2002-2003 Criteria for inclusion/Archive Criteria for inclusion/Archive 1
Criteria for inclusion/Archive 2 Criteria for inclusion/Archive 3 Criteria for inclusion/Brand names
Criteria for inclusion/Editable Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages

Generic use[edit]

The attributive rule got voted out, but I didn't object to its idea, just its wording. It's was as badly worded as can be imagined. It would be nice to add it back in a new form, that is fully explaining what it means. A few points

  1. Most important IMO and most potentially controversial, specific entities should not 'require' generic use, but generic use should be one way for an entry to pass. Therefore if Late Latin isn't used generically, it won't be deleted.
  2. Uncontroversially, the wording should be precise and leave as little room for doubt as possible. For example, attributive use could mean grammatical attributive use. So David Beckham haircut would be attributive use of David Beckham to modify haircut. Generic use, IMO, should be a meaning other than the primary one. So Billy Elliot would pass because of three citations of 'a Billy Elliot' referring to a young male dancer. All three citations would have to back up the same meaning, not just any meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some context please. What part of the CFI are you proposing to modify? What do you want to see included/excluded that isn't currently? Why? You appear to be talking about both generic use and attributive use, (although it's not clear what the uses are of) yet the section title is just generic use? Can you link to the vote in question so we can see what it was about and what the wording was? Have you got any specific wording in mind or is this just a statement of desire for someone to do something about something? Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. Now that we don't have an attributive use rule, I'd like a generic use rule. I'll try and work out some wording when I have time. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Usage in a well-known work[edit]

For a discussion of the criterion of "usage in a well-know work", see also WT:BP#CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work, January 2011. --Dan Polansky 13:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete or improve?[edit]

Can I suggest, rather than flagging entries for deletion, we should try and improve the entries by adding missing etymology, pronunciation, linguistic info, etc? User Msh210 has again started a war against place names entries, e.g. Cannes and a few others starting with C. I was heavily involved adding translations for many and I feel upset. Place names are allowed to have and missing info should be nicely requested without threats to delete within a month.

Adding {{placename/box}} takes a second, adding all the required information takes much more effort. Can we all be more proactive and not try to wipe somebody's work but add the required information? --Anatoli 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I upset you. It was not my intention. I's also not my intention to delete the entries after only a month. More discussion on this is still in the BP, at [[#placenames up for deletion]]; might I suggest that you contribute to that discussion rather than here?​—msh210 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't see the point of linking to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Renaming CFI section on genealogic names. DAVilla 13:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic" entries, attestation of individual elements of definitions[edit]

Those wishing to discuss the above-named issues(s) in the future may find this long, thoughtful discussion (sooner-or-later to be archived to Talk:Baidouska) interesting. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, baidouska might be considered a variant of pajduska/paidushka/pajduško/pajdusko/paidushko, which appears to be verifiable in English without too much trouble. Michael Z. 2012-01-30 22:55 z

SOP applied too deletionist[edit]

I feel that WT:SOP is applied too freely, and the result is words that aren't particularly SOPy are deleted anyway, often almost arbitrarily. Part of the problem is that in a two-word phrase, one or more of the words has multiple definitions, and it isn't always 100% clear which definition is meant. Therefore, I propose a slight relaxation of SOP involving composite words where one of the words has multiple definitions Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a few problems with this. The main problem is, that means that any combination of words where at least one of them has two meanings being allowed. So, readily has two meanings, I readily agreed and I readily said yes would meet CFI. They're both attested. I has more than one meaning anyway, so any combination of words including the word I meets CFI. There are other objections, but if I lump them all in one message, the conversation will get too sparse. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the alternative, keeping SOP the way it is, is much worse. It means that phrases that aren't crystal clear are being deleted anyway. SOP really is in conflict with NOTPAPER Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
CFI are not clear, and misunderstood, because they are much too complex. The simple way would be to clearly state: all words (including set phrases) used in a language and that may be considered as belonging to the vocabulary of the language may be included. Lmaltier 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
"may be considered" does not seem like a usable rule. Considered by whom on what grounds? That's why we need CFI. Equinox 20:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a simpler sentence, but applying it would not be simpler than what we have now. BTW I don't think NOTPAPER means "add every conceivable combination of words". We do need some credibility. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course not every combination of words. Only elements of the vocabulary. And I'm sure that such a sentence would help very much (but additional rules would be required nonetheless, to understand what the rule means, and when limits are required for practical reasons, e.g. for numbers). Lmaltier 20:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Since Purplebackpack89 hasn't replied to my first point, I'll go on to my second. The policy would support a fundamental mistake in how language work. In a dictionary, we define words and terms in isolation (one at a time) whereas in the real world words and terms appear in a context. It's often very clear from the context what something means. For example 'car crash' could mean the crash of a 'first part of a cons in LISP. The first element of a list' (etymology 2 of car) however the context tells us this, so we don't need to define car crash separately. If you spend to much time breaking something down into its parts, you forget about the whole. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't reply to your first point because I don't see any problem with that. Perfectly fine with lots more entries. Your argument seems to be based on a line of thinking (unproven, I might add) that. I think the opposite of the that is true...if readers can't find a definition for the word or phrase they're looking for, or have to go to Wikipedia to complete the definition, they'll be disappointed. And if this community keeps thinking that commonly used two-word phrases like car crash and television show don't belong, I feel that readers will not think too highly of it and use something else Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

General rule incomplete for Wikisaurus[edit]

The current general rule is "A term should be included if [and only if?] it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means."

I think this rule is incomplete for Wikisaurus. For the most part, this rule addresses reading. A thesausus primarly addresses writing. You know the definition of a word (possibly with great attention to its subtleties); you just want to find a synonym.

I would suggest that we ammend the rule to read something like "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means or (for Wikisaurus) that someone would want to find a word or phrase with a similar meaning." Or we could deal with this in a new subsection. Or even in a brand new project page: say, CFI for Wikisaurus.

The reason for this is that the current rule has led us to delete thousands upon thousands of Wikisaurus idioms and slang phrases that do not meet the current criteria for inclusion in Wiktionary but, in my opinion, are useful in finding a synonym. A phrase may be defined by its words (and thus need no separate entry in Wiktionary) but still be useful in finding a synonym idiom with just the right connotations.

For example, the phrase "exercise my anus" was an entry in Wikisaurus's defecate in January 2009 but doesn't appear now. Similarly, "bikini stuffers" was a synonym for breasts in March 2006 but not now. If I was writing a story about a lazy summer on the beach, I might want to use "bikini stuffers" instead of "racks" or "boobs".

The Wikisaurus:Breasts entry now includes the warning "Only words that meet criteria for inclusion can be included." My point is that it's incomplete for thesauruses. --RoyGoldsmith 01:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it unreasonable to include things in Wikisaurus that we don't have entries for. I don't find your examples the most convincing, though.--Prosfilaes 11:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Why should Wikisaurus have laxer criteria for inclusion? Shouldn't a writer using this reference be confident that a suggested synonym is an attested part of the language, rather than some nonce coinage? Furthermore, should the writer find an unfamiliar word, he would also benefit from a detailed definition, notes about connotation, register, usage, etc., so she can employ the word correctly and appropriately. We have no business making up such entries out of the blue.
I don't see how we can include such terms sufficiently well, and I it looks to me like this dictionary would suffer from their inclusion, while the thesaurus wouldn't really benefit. Michael Z. 2012-01-30 22:15 z
To answer my own question, perhaps currently-popular neologisms, too recent to meet our CFI could be included, but I would think they should be labelled as such. Michael Z. 2012-01-30 23:12 z
Because often the best term is SOP. Frequently, "at the seashore" is better then "littoral" and "named after a person" is better than "eponymous". But those two are rightly not eligible for entries.--Prosfilaes 00:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but those feel more like definitions than something I would be hoping to find in a thesaurus. Michael Z. 2012-01-31 16:18 z
Can't thesaurus entries include non-dictionary-worthy items, just not making them links? Equinox 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
We used to have pages like Wikisaurus:breasts/more, but they were so embarassing the community decided to get rid of them. -- Liliana 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's say I'm a writer, writing a story about the beach. I might want to use "bikini stuffers" (if I knew about it) as opposed to "breasts" or "boobs" or "rack". Breasts are too clinical, boobs too teenage-ish and rack too racy. I might want something that specifically relates to swinsuits and bikinis. Roget's splits terms by numeric category so that you can find exactly the same meaning terms (synonyms), almost-exact-meaning terms (hyponyns or hypernyms), sort of the same meaning terms, terms that are related in some vague sense to other terms and, particularly, terms that are like other terms but with a different connotation.
In another example, "spitting chips" (a current red link) does not have the exact same connotations as any other synonym for Ws:angry. Are we supposed to leave out spitting chips (or bikini stuffers) just because they aren't listed as terms in Wiktionary? (And I'm not saying that spitting chips or bikini stuffers deserve an entry in the main dictionary.)
Remember, a thesaurus is not merely a list of synonyms. And it certainly isn't a list of attested synonyms. Creative writers want "nonce coinages" and one-time-only usages. In certain cases, they may even prefer phrases that have yet to see the light of publication. If a reader wants only attested usages, they always have blue links vs. either red links or straight text. For non-published phrases, I would isolate them on /more pages. --RoyGoldsmith 05:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Are there professional thesauruses that make up new words, or are we about to corner the market in this category? Is there evidence of demand for this service, or is that speculation? Michael Z. 2012-02-01 17:35 z
What is a professional thesaurus? Do you mean published thesaurus? Perhaps even "published in paper-book form"? Or do you mean well-known thesauruses? Well, in Roget's International Thesaurus (5th edition, published by Harper Collins in 1992) has tons of new terms. On virtually every page, in virtually every entry, you have roughly as many new reference terms (not in the thesaurus as a root) as root terms. For example, the first entry on page 1 is BIRTH. It has 28 noun terms, including "having a baby", "giving birth", "the stork", "birth throes", "blessed event" and so on. Most of these phrases are not used as root terms.
What I'm trying to say is that there should be NO connection between a dictionary (used for looking up meanings) and a thesausus (used for finding like-meaning terms). The methodology for constructing them is totally different. For one thing, idiomaticity gets thrown out of the window. In a thesaurus, you want the root terms to be "easily derived from the meaning of [reference terms'] separate components" but a reference term might not be easily derived from the root term. For example, you can easily figure out that "bikini-stuffers" means "breasts" but, given the concept of breasts, you probably would not derive the phrase bikini-stuffers. --RoyGoldsmith 04:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A summary?[edit]

I often thought that CFI is quite long and dense to read, as it uses a lot of technical terms. This makes it hard for newcomers to understand, which is a problem because they are the ones who need it the most! So maybe it would be a good idea to provide a short summary of the most important parts of CFI, maybe on a separate page, in simple "welcome message"-style prose? —CodeCat 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Use full name of COALMINE[edit]

If you aren't going to summarize what WT:COALMINE means you could at least give the full name of the vote/policy ("Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word") which pretty much explains it. Siuenti (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want it to be fixed, raise the issue in the WT:BP and get community consensus. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done it used to give the full name, but Daniel changed that with no discussion, so I reverted it. -- Liliana 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Good call. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Text for COALMINE.[edit]

Currently, § "Idiomaticity" ends with this indented, italicized paragraph:

:''The vote [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word]] adds a criterion for inclusion without specifying text to be amended in this document, so please see it for the additional criterion.''<ref>([[WT:COALMINE]]) [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word]]</ref>

I'd like to propose that it be replaced with this unindented, unitalicized paragraph:

If a collocation is significantly more common than an included single-word spelling, then the collocation ismay be included as well, even if it is unidiomatic or debatable. For example, {{term|coalmine|lang=en}} is well attested, but {{term|coal mine|lang=en}} is significantly more common, so both are included, regardless of whether {{term||coal mine|lang=en}} is otherwise idiomatic.<ref>([[WT:COALMINE]]) [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word]]</ref>

(O.K., so that wording isn't great. But it's an improvement over what we've got now. And I'd welcome further improvements.)

RuakhTALK 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that, but this isn't the venue to propose it in. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not? —RuakhTALK 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I expect non-admins don't watch this page. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it should read "then the collocation may be included as well" rather than "then the collocation is included as well." "Should be included" would be fine too, AFAIAC. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no need for such a change. However, if we're to make it, then I think the text should indicate in its discussion of the coal mine example that coal mine and coalmine are forms of the same word phrase thing, which it doesn't now.​—msh210 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, also in the normative part. As currently worded, it allows the house as significantly more common than encephalon.​—msh210 (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussions of durability[edit]

Because it may be useful to have this index of them, here are some past discussions of durability:

- -sche (discuss) 23:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See also WT:SEA for a list of archives and engines that are useful when looking for durable citations. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Types of media which have been cited in entries:
Note that this list is not concerned with whether particular types of media were necessary to attest a term, as in liliger and ΖΟΑΠΑΝ and ᚅᚔᚑᚈᚈᚐ, or were merely supplemental, as in deutsch. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of misspellings.[edit]

I assume it's uncontroversial to change this:

Once it is decided that a misspelling is of sufficient importance to merit its own page, the formatting of such a page should not be particularly problematical. The usual language and part of speech headings can be used, followed by this simple entry:
# {{misspelling of|[[...]]}}
An additional section explaining why the term is a misspelling should be considered optional.

to this:

Once it is decided that a misspelling is of sufficient importance to merit its own page, the formatting of such a page should not be particularly problematical. The usual language and part of speech headings can be used, followed by this simple definition:
# {{misspelling of|...}}
An additional section explaining why the term is a misspelling should be considered optional.


(I.e., changing "entry" to "definition", and removing the [[ and ]] from inside {{misspelling of}}?)

RuakhTALK 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Never assume.  :-)  But I, for one, support such an edit without a vote.​—msh210 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I would support something like "... followed by a simple definition using the following format:". --BB12 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I support the spirit of the change, but it needs to mention and explain the lang= parameter too. —CodeCat 19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
O.K., first of all, @BenjaminBarrett12 and @CodeCat: your comments imply that you don't support the currently proposed changes unless modified as you propose. If you don't, then — why don't you? Do you not consider them to be improvements? Do you feel that they're too minor, on their own, to warrant editing WT:CFI? Something else? (I ask because part of the point of being able to make uncontested changes after mere discussion, without a full vote, is that it allows smaller changes to be made piecemeal, without much bureaucracy. If lots of people jump on and add riders, refusing to support the original change, then I think we'll end up back where we started. I hope that you two aren't holding this change "hostage" to other changes you want.)
Those questions out of the way . . . how about:
Once it is decided that a misspelling is of sufficient importance to merit its own page, the formatting of such a page should not be particularly problematical. The usual language and part of speech headings can be used, followed by a simple definition using the following format:
# {{misspelling of|occurred|lang=en}}
An additional section explaining why the term is a misspelling should be considered optional.
 ? (This incorporates BenjaminBarrett12's change; it adds lang=en per CodeCat — though I suspect that now DCDuring will object; and it uses the "occurred" example from earlier in the "Spellings" section, rather than .... This last part is because lang=... was too vague, and I feared that of|...|lang=en could be taken to imply that only English misspellings are allowed, whereas of|occurred|lang=en seems more obviously just an example.)
RuakhTALK 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Some people here think black and white like that but I try not to. Any improvement is good, even if it's not yet the end result I would prefer. I support the change, but I'm also pointing out that it can be improved further and that I would prefer that. —CodeCat 19:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Basically ditto. --BB12 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Support with all changes (Ruakh's, BB's, and CodeCat's) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that you only support if all changes are made? Or do you support each change independently? —RuakhTALK 22:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Independently. In general, you can assume that my votes for certain changes must be enacted together iff I say "iff". --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Ruakh's original change, don’t mind (would support, but would also be OK without) BB's or CC's. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I support Ruakh's and Ruakh+BB12's also.​—msh210 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean that you object to CodeCat's change, or merely that you don't actively support it? —RuakhTALK 22:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a good idea in theory, but I can't think of an implementation that is not too wordy or awkward and that refers to English also (not only foreign entries). So I suppose I'm opposed to the exact wording proposed above while in favor, perhaps, of another.—msh210℠ on a public computer 03:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
lol, this is almost as bureaucratic as a vote... - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"Fancy thinking the Bureaucracy was something you could hunt and kill!" said the head. "You knew, didn't you? I'm part of you?" —RuakhTALK 23:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sche. This really isn't that complicated, guys. Nitpicking ≠ consensus-gathering. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I mean to say, אוי#Yiddish. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I support Ruakh’s and CodeCat’s changes, and don’t mind Benjamin’s. I also assume it’s uncontroversial. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Any admin who objects, please comment here and revert. Any non-admin who objects, please comment here saying so, and an admin will revert for you. —RuakhTALK 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest writing guidelines for...[edit]

Suggestion to add guidleines about why not to provide the definition of phrases like at the, or other words which are often paired but convey no special meaning or importance over the same words singularly, such as biker gang. And, why it is important, if a word is often used to describe something which shirks or goes against the usual defining meaning of the word, to explain with etymology or irony as appropriate, such as the use of the words hero and protagonist in literary review, to describe a main character irrequisite of the quality of being heroic, or the position of protagonising. RTG (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical error[edit]

"A name that occurs only in the works of fiction of a single author, a television series or a video game, or within a closed context such as the works of several authors writing about a single fictional universe is not used independently and should not be included." I think it should be "If a name that occurs only in the works of fiction of a single author, a television series or a video game, or within a closed context such as the works of several authors writing about a single fictional universe is not used independently then it should not be included."Trongphu (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And the reason for that is the former sentence doesn't make sense.Trongphu (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It is fine. It says "a name [of that kind] should not be included". Equinox 06:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a comma could help prevent future (mis)conceptions:
"A name that occurs only in the works of fiction of a single author, a television series or a video game, or within a closed context such as the works of several authors writing about a single fictional universe, is not used independently and should not be included."
Just my two paras. --biblbroksдискашн 17:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Archaic inflected forms[edit]

There is a number of verbs in Russian that have multiple choices of inflection for all forms of the same verb (not just one complementary form). And these forms are equal in use, for example: "брызгать": я брызгаю/я брызжу, "алкать": я алкаю/я алчу, "рыскать": я рыскаю/я рыщу etc. For some of the verbs there is a contemporary way of inflecting them and the old one, that was used in the 19th century pretty widely (by Russian classic writers). The old ways of inflection might even encounter as main ones in some grammar books of the beginning of 20th century. Lexicographers, of course, do mention the contemporary way of inflecting in today's dictionaries and either omit the old ones or mark them as archaic. Sometimes the words get considered as w:defective verbs in the new dictionaries: they even get infinitive as not-existent, while preserving the most widely used forms, for example: an infinitive "обымать" is stated to be eligible only for the standard conjugation, but for the old one it's not longer considered as an infinitive; for the old conjugation ("объемлю" 1st.p. pres.) only present tense is considered existent.

Since the main purpose of Wiktionary is to describe all words (and their forms) despite their outdatedness to be able to search for any form, my idea is to specifically prescribe in the Wiktionary policy, that all, even old forms (which belong to this language not the Old Language counterpart) to be included in the word articles, no matter there are in use today.

As an example, I made this article with two conjugations with the second one marked as old one. The other user, being guided by today's dictionaries moves the second conjugation into a defective verb article. Please, arbitrate, who was right, and prescribe the correct way of dealing with such cases. Soshial (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really feasible. Sometimes there are many different ways that an old form was written (seien is an extreme example), and we can't fit all those forms into one table. —CodeCat 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, but I was talking not about spelling variants, but about forms that are equal in usage but their production belongs to different classes of conjugation. Soshial (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

children's language[edit]

Do we need to tweak CFI for children's language? For example, i seem to remember from long ago that "pesk" was used at least by children as a noun in English in the USA (S/He's a real pesk.). I haven't lived in an English-speaking country for a long time, so i don't know whether it's still used. Websites and even Google Books do a bad job of recording the language of children, so i'm not surprised Google only finds very few hits for "a real pesk". --Espoo (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Slang and dialect will be hard to cite, but I don't see any reason to change our rules. On one hand, IMO the citation rules are important in keeping words that people might actually find and look up instead of pretending to cover all unrecorded slang. On the other, children's language is at the bottom a hopeless mire; every family has its own cute mispronunciations and English spellings will vary over the map.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevancy, misspelling or just not a word[edit]

Is "overcommissioning" a word, as it only has 125 hits on Google? (A virtual disk might rather be overcommitted, than overcommissioned; but acting role slots for a play, maybe not.) --Alien4 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's rare, but I found 2 hits on Google Books, as well as at least one for hyphenated over-commissioning, so it's not completely made up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
In context, such a word might be easily understood, so the fact that it might not meet the standards for inclusion in a dictionary need not keep one from using it happily in an appropriate situation. OTOH, without more context I don't really get the connection between a verb overcommission or a possible noun overcommissioning and "acting role slots". DCDuring TALK 12:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Some examples include..."[edit]

This phrase has some redundancy about it. IMO, we should say "Examples include..." or "Some examples are..." Equinox 21:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Question re attestation.[edit]

So we can't quote Wikipedia, or anything else Wiki. But if book, otherwise quotable, quotes Wikipedia, can we quote its quote as attestation of words quoted? DeistCosmos (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question. There are some books which simply copy Wikipedia articles wholesale; those have not been considered citable. But a book of otherwise-original content that only quoted a sentence, or a paragraph... hmm. - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Constructed languages[edit]

The "constructed languages" section may be out-of-sync with (a) the set of codes the ISO has approved, and possibly also (b) practice on Wiktionary. (See also #Láadan.) In particular, the line "at present another 12 of the 7000 languages in the ISO 639-3 list are constructed languages" may be out-of-date, and there has been a tendency among some editors to create appendices for other constructed languages which the CFI says "there is no apparent consensus for including", such as Appendix:Toki Pona; at the same time, some appendices were recently deleted pursuant to a BP thread because they were copyright violations. I plan to look over the section and determine the extent of any discrepancies between it, the ISO's current list of codes, and Wiktionary's current treatment of constructed languages, but I leave this note here describing the issue so other people can look into it if I get distracted and fail to. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If any significant changes are made to this page, ping me, so I won't end up fucking shit up. Pass a Method (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Widespread use[edit]

Broom icon.svg A user suggests that this talk page be cleaned up.
Please see the discussion on Requests for cleanup(+) or the talk page for more information and remove this template after the problem has been dealt with.

As a practical matter, it is resolved by vote, but evidence of any kind may be appropriate. It is intended to allow for acceptance of colloquial expressions not appearing in print and expressions that are hard to otherwise cite because they are swamped in search by even more common terms (eg, abbreviations) and to reduce abusive use of {{rfv}}. It is clearly beneficial to Wiktionary not to overuse this rationale as users benefit from citations, even more than they benefit from manufactured usage examples. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)