Talk:心理測評
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.
Is this valid as Mandarin? The IP user who created this appears to be our old occult-obsessed anon friend. They also added a JA entry on that page, which generates exactly zero Google hits of any kind for Japanese, so I nixed that on sight. Can anyone vouch for the Mandarin term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can confirm it exists; 12,800,000 hits on Google, 1,370 hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd noticed that it seems to exist. :) Beyond that, does it actually mean what the anon says it means? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- A Google search appears to confirm it does. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Chinese native here, that word is only referring to the second sense of psychometry, and I'd use 心理測驗 instead. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- And then of course, it is totally different from 接觸感應. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- And whoever the hell added the Chinese interwiki link of 接觸感應 obviously didn't check at all. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- And then of course, it is totally different from 接觸感應. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Chinese native here, that word is only referring to the second sense of psychometry, and I'd use 心理測驗 instead. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- A Google search appears to confirm it does. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's par for the course. Their method seems to be: 1) Start with an English word they think should have a Chinese- and/or Japanese-language counterpart (nine times out of ten it's a minor footnote to Western culture that's unknown to speakers of those languages) 2) Cook up a translation by a combination of guesswork and Bing Translate 3) Piece together an entry for that translation from bits they copied from other entries, including an interwiki link for the Wiktionary and a Wikipedia template for the Wikipedia for that language. 4) Go on to the next bogus entry without checking anything, since they don't actually read or write the languages they're editing.
- Not that they do much better with English-language entries: they have no clue, and it's really rare for anything they've edited to not need cleanup or deletion afterward. They constantly switch IPs, and won't create an account, so there's no way to reliably communicate with them. We've been blocking them as soon as we see their edits, which slows them down, but they always get in at least a few edits each time. This has been going on for three years now, and it isn't likely to end soon. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oops! I see you're referring to a different entry. That one's just an ordinary slip-up from someone who knows better, and generally doesn't make that kind of mistake. Oh, well... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd noticed that it seems to exist. :) Beyond that, does it actually mean what the anon says it means? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Failed. I replaced the definition with
{{rfdef}}per Eiríkr, Kennylau and Tooironic’s comments. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)