Talk:Pollock

Pollock as an alternate spelling for polack

This is chalengeable as it appears to be a neologism rather than an acknowledged sense of the word pollock. Meaning it is not backed-up by any dictionary and/or encyclopedic sources. Pollock --Jazzeur 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

Note: previous discussion at Talk:Polack and User talk:76.66.194.195. —Ruakh_TALK 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:

1. {{alternative spelling of|[[Polack]]}}

(Has been questioned by an anon editing [[Polack#Alternative spellings]].)
—Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense This is chalengeable as it appears to be a neologism rather than an acknowledged sense of the word pollock. Meaning it is not backed-up by any dictionary and/or encyclopedic sources. --Jazzeur 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The words Pollock and pollock are different, as Smith and smith are. The multiple spellings of "Polack" are shown for example in DARE, but we require only that a given sense be supported by 3 quotes from durably archived sources spanning a year. See WT:CFI. If this were a neologism, that does not mean it would be removed. If it meets the attestation standard, it stays. It might be made to have a neologism tag, but the criteria for that are not systematic, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It actually seems that one could even attest the spelling pollock for the same meaning based on a Google books search for "dumb pollock", but the "See" links at the top of the page should be good enough. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do delete misspellings, unless they're "common misspellings"; but that seems to be outside the scope of RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 13:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we have specific guidelines for deleting one of these? All, including Polack, are in origin eye-dialect of the Polish. They are something like the many spellings of (deprecated template usage) באָבקעס (bubkes). DCDuring TALK 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think an RFD vote is sufficient. If the community decides it's a misspelling (as Jazzeur seems to think), and that it's not a common one (as I think is pretty clear), then it goes. Personally, I think it might be nice to have some sort of "Alternative spelling, or perhaps misspelling, of ____" template for cases like this, where it's attested, and adequately cited, and it's not necessarily clear whether to consider it a misspelling. —Ruakh_TALK 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks again for the cites, DCDuring. Anyone wishing to RFD this as a misspelling, please feel free to do so. —Ruakh_TALK 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)