Talk:Euromaidan
Add topic
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.
As pointed out further up this page, this word seems to fail the "spanning a year" clause of WT:CFI by definition (as it refers to an event that began only 3.5 months ago). - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why RFV is the place for this. It should either be speedied or RFD'd, since we know it can't pass RFV. --WikiTiki89 00:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted, then. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- We should keep a calendar of words like these reminding us to reexamine them after a year has passed. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion. Following CFI in this case seems like a pointless exercise, more about rules than reason. We all know that this is a widespread term, and we all know that it will pass CFI by the end of the year. Heck, there are probably already plenty of citations for it. Excluding it doesn't benefit Wiktionary in the slightest, so I ask you to please motivate this deletion. —CodeCat 03:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The deletion is motivated by WT:CFI. You can start an undeletion discussion at WT:RFD if you want. --WikiTiki89 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I mean is, is following CFI beneficial to Wiktionary right now? Is Wiktionary better off with or without these entries for now? I think Wiktionary is better with them, and that's really all that should matter, isn't it? CFI is meant to make Wiktionary better, so if it sometimes ends up not, then those are the occasions where we have to reconsider following it to the letter. —CodeCat 04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's why I said you can start an undeletion discussion at WT:RFD. My whole point is that an RFV is useless because it automatically fails. --WikiTiki89 04:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I mean is, is following CFI beneficial to Wiktionary right now? Is Wiktionary better off with or without these entries for now? I think Wiktionary is better with them, and that's really all that should matter, isn't it? CFI is meant to make Wiktionary better, so if it sometimes ends up not, then those are the occasions where we have to reconsider following it to the letter. —CodeCat 04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The deletion is motivated by WT:CFI. You can start an undeletion discussion at WT:RFD if you want. --WikiTiki89 03:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose the deletion. Following CFI in this case seems like a pointless exercise, more about rules than reason. We all know that this is a widespread term, and we all know that it will pass CFI by the end of the year. Heck, there are probably already plenty of citations for it. Excluding it doesn't benefit Wiktionary in the slightest, so I ask you to please motivate this deletion. —CodeCat 03:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- We should keep a calendar of words like these reminding us to reexamine them after a year has passed. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted, then. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The requirement that terms have been in use for more than a year exists to exclude terms that are fads and fall out of use. As the discussions of neknomination, розовая слизь and olinguito demonstrate, different people have different ideas of which terms will remain in use and which will prove to have been fads. You think this term will remain in use, like olinguito (which, side note, was discussed here and not on RFD). I don't think that's certain at all, particularly because I've followed the news of the protests in both English and German and I've only heard descriptive phrases like "Proteste in der Ukraine", "protesters in Maidan square", etc, and sometimes mention of things being taken to the "Maidan" for discussion. I think "Euromaidan", like "neknomination", may lose all of its ground to its many, many synonyms. The only way to find out is to wait a year.
I suggested in the discussion of neknomination that we check back on розовая слизь: not even a full year has passed (so the term shouldn't be recreated yet even if it is still in use), but we might find it informative to see whether or not it has seen current use. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- The requirement that terms have been in use for more than a year exists to exclude terms that are fads and fall out of use. As the discussions of neknomination, розовая слизь and olinguito demonstrate, different people have different ideas of which terms will remain in use and which will prove to have been fads. You think this term will remain in use, like olinguito (which, side note, was discussed here and not on RFD). I don't think that's certain at all, particularly because I've followed the news of the protests in both English and German and I've only heard descriptive phrases like "Proteste in der Ukraine", "protesters in Maidan square", etc, and sometimes mention of things being taken to the "Maidan" for discussion. I think "Euromaidan", like "neknomination", may lose all of its ground to its many, many synonyms. The only way to find out is to wait a year.
As above. --WikiTiki89 00:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted like Euromaidan. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)