Talk:Wu-ch'ia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Geographyinitiative in topic RFV discussion: December 2020
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
There are three independent uses of this word listed on that page, but one of them is on a detailed area map instead of a sentence. Has this word met WT:ATTEST? If not, could you check your resources to see if you can find another example of the use of this word? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Geographyinitiative: Detailed area maps instead of sentences are well enough, as the map uses an English transcription. Even above for Huang-ch'i Metaknowledge admitted that the maps there constitute one cite. Fay Freak (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your impartial analysis here and elsewhere. Can I ask one more thing though: is what I have done on the Wu-ch'ia page ACTUALLY enough to secure that page from ever being deleted from the website (as long as the website exists)? The three examples (two sentences, one map) are all from the one etymology presented as far as I can see. I am pretty sure no one will ever say you have to split etymologies based on origination with simplified and traditional characters. I want to anticipate all possibilities and potential changes in Wiktionary policy. No one else will care enough or know enough to be able to defend this word's entry when Hanyu Pinyin-only trolls come for it in 2070. I want to make this page unshakable through the ages, but I also don't want to waste time adding too many extra citations. The major change that could happen one day to this entry is a purist changing Wu-ch'ia to Wu-chʻia or similar to return to the spiritus asper. At that time, someone could try to say that one of the entries is not using spiritus asper. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Geographyinitiative: As long as staunch lexicographers like you and me, who have an unbiased idea of what a dictionary should include, set the pace around here, it will be secure. The small Unicode difference in apostrophes cannot kill an entry – as as I said on other places we have to abstract from what has been written to what should be written anyhow, and nobody can argue that because the apostrophes are shaped not wholly identical in three quotes that therefore we don’t have enough occurrences of the word to keep it. And hypothetical stricter citation requirements are unfeasible; rather, if the CCP virus goes on on its rampage and the Usonians continue to be busy with themselves, we will have to reformulate the inclusion conditions and relax them because libraries are closed, printed papers are discontinued and there is barely enough personnel to assess the reality of entries in many languages – which we see is already necessary because the CFI are a bodge not well understood especially by those who should. Fay Freak (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your impartial analysis here and elsewhere. Can I ask one more thing though: is what I have done on the Wu-ch'ia page ACTUALLY enough to secure that page from ever being deleted from the website (as long as the website exists)? The three examples (two sentences, one map) are all from the one etymology presented as far as I can see. I am pretty sure no one will ever say you have to split etymologies based on origination with simplified and traditional characters. I want to anticipate all possibilities and potential changes in Wiktionary policy. No one else will care enough or know enough to be able to defend this word's entry when Hanyu Pinyin-only trolls come for it in 2070. I want to make this page unshakable through the ages, but I also don't want to waste time adding too many extra citations. The major change that could happen one day to this entry is a purist changing Wu-ch'ia to Wu-chʻia or similar to return to the spiritus asper. At that time, someone could try to say that one of the entries is not using spiritus asper. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. It's a waste of everybody's time to send something to RFV when it already has 3 cites. I think we all agree that this entry is perfectly fine. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: a similar situation arises at Citations:Koxtag [1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)