Talk:Floydering

RFV discussion: July–August 2018

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

---

Floydering

We have a number of citations that are rather "mentiony". Can anyone find anything better, or shall I delete it again. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Same user has now created Floyder, Floyders, Floydered. Equinox ◑ 21:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have now provided additional citations using Floydering, Floyder, and Floyders in speech and text in context. As a neologism I understand due diligence, however as noted to each of you individually, I've complied in providing numerous published citations from a wide variety of sources (newspapers, websites, and journals, and even a song title). Those citations include the definition, etymology, uses in speech, and even variations on the word Floydering: Floyder, Floyders. With due respect, while I have sought Wiktionary:Assume good faith it does feel like the amount of scrutiny applied here is more than a majority of other Wiktionary entries or contributors have or receive. Per Wiktionary policy: In contrast to protologisms, neologisms are words that have already been in public usage by authors other than their inventors. As soon as a protologism finds its way into newspapers and websites, journals and books, it becomes a neologism and merits a separate Wiktionary entry. Accordingly, the word(s) exsist and merit separate Wiktionary entries. With the amount of citations and references, I'm unsure why there is a continued perceived begrudging resistance here, and a push to delete? --2600:1700:5370:980:F5D0:497:D0EE:8AE4 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

But a "continued begrudging resistance" to actually learning our rules and policies regarding use-vs.-mention etc. is fine, right? -- There are a few good cites in there but most are just "look at this cool word we are talking about!". Equinox ◑ 00:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, I am unsure what more is required or what I've not complied with that has been requested? By your own quote you admit that "there are a few good cites in there" and I do appreciate that. The copious citations now provided include a wide variety of sources (newspapers, websites, and journals, and even a song title) and substantiate the definition, etymology, uses in speech and text, and even variations on the word. I can continue to provide additional citations, however I believe it excessive. In this exercise, while Wiktionary may hold a higher standard that other Wikimedia projects, in contrast I've found the interactions here rather unwelcoming and resistant, certainly not in the same supportive, collaborative, or helpful spirit. I've had my entry deleted outright, been insulted, and had my contributions scrutinized to a degree and in a manner that would seem both overly critical and demanding. I believe such engagement could only be off-putting to potential future collaborators of the project. Again, if there is something still required, I am happy to comply and provide it. --2600:1700:5370:980:24BC:2F47:34B7:6E8 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I am going to call this RFV-passed. While most of the cites are either mentions or not on durably archived sources, I have moved three that I think are acceptable to the main page. Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Kiwima! This has been an interesting process to be part of. --2600:1700:5370:980:D526:CED8:75D1:7379 00:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)