Talk:Hornung
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: February 2018
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
0 google books results, and google web results indicate it's Ripuarian or more specific Kölnisch which is treated as another language at wiktionary (Category:Ripuarian Central Franconian as subdialect of Category:Central Franconian lemmas) and maybe isn't attestable with WDL requirements (3 durably archived usages). -84.161.37.160 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You have been told this before, but these kinds of quibbles over entries are not appropriate for RFV. This page is about disputing the existence of entries, and you could appropriately post here if Febrowaa were a German entry, but as it stands, you should simply remove it from the list of synonyms (as I have now done) with you reasoning in the edit summary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Having an entry for a term or linking to a term (in the main namespace) gives the same result: Stating that a term exists. It doesn't make a difference whether the statement is made in it's own entry (like Febrowaa), in an alternative forms section of another (like in Februar), in a *nym section of another term (like synonym in Februar, Feber, [[[Hornung]]), or in the translation section of an English term (like in February). And according to the intro, "This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses". Thus this is the right place. If it would be more proper procedure to first create an entry based on the main namespace mentioning and to RFV that, an entry Febrowaa could have been easily created based on the information from the entry Hornung like this:
- ==German==
- {{rfv|de}}
- ===Noun===
- {{head|de|noun|Febrowaa}}
- # {{synonym of|Februar|lang=de}} [or: # {{alternative of|Februar|lang=de}}]
- But IMHO it's easier and makes more sense to just RFV a term mentioned somewhere in the main namespace instead of first creating an entry for it. As for simply removing the term, I have an aversion towards it, because the term might exist, even though it might be rare or something, and than a removal would be vandalism-like, and because people might assume bad faith and think it's vandalism and might undo the removal and maybe even block the remover. And if the removal would have been undone, there would be no other way than to RFV the term in some way. Whether or not an entry Febrowaa should have been created for the RFV, doesn't make a real difference. If you or anybody else would have liked to have an entry Febrowaa with RFV tag, then you could have said so and then it would have been created. -84.161.11.167 23:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are being silly. You would not have been blocked for removing it, and if you want to be trusted when making potentially controversial edits, you should create an account. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Having an entry for a term or linking to a term (in the main namespace) gives the same result: Stating that a term exists. It doesn't make a difference whether the statement is made in it's own entry (like Febrowaa), in an alternative forms section of another (like in Februar), in a *nym section of another term (like synonym in Februar, Feber, [[[Hornung]]), or in the translation section of an English term (like in February). And according to the intro, "This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses". Thus this is the right place. If it would be more proper procedure to first create an entry based on the main namespace mentioning and to RFV that, an entry Febrowaa could have been easily created based on the information from the entry Hornung like this: