Talk:barney-mugging

RFV discussion: June–July 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

---

barney-mugging

US 1920s slang for sexual intercourse. Popular in "funny word" lists. Google Books has only one hit, which is a modern mention. Equinox ◑ 11:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

While barney-mugging is hard to cite, barneymugging is easy to cite. I have changed this to an alt form. Do we allow it to stay as an alt form, with most occurrences being on non-durably archived sources such as this? Kiwima (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, WT:ATTEST suggests only the term needs three uses. If a term is once written together, once hyphenated, once apart, this is the same term three times used, so we can’t have nothing because of this variation. Same if it has been misspelled. More, there are terms never spelt out durably but only attested from audio. In other times they are only found in sundry outmoded spellings but we give them in normalized spellings, otherwise people might wonder why we have German lemma forms with -schafft instead of -schaft or ß in place of ss in spite of everything else adhering to Heysesche s-Schreibung and the like; it’s mentioned at Wiktionary:About German#Spelling. And we should go the whole hog, isn’t it, if we include the term spelled together then we should redirect it spelled apart because people search it that way and should find regular spellings of included terms—there is no “partial inclusion” provided by the CFI. Fay Freak (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:antiSunni, Talk:antiZionism, Talk:antijewish - for example, the single cite at Citations:antiChinese isn't enough. --93.221.43.105 15:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s a different constellation. Variation between writing together, hyphenated and apart is of distinct regularity, clearly also of conscious presence the supposedly non-durable web – whence people come here and search the terms, while these anti spellings not so. Fay Freak (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Propose adding a usage note regarding its artificial and forced revival as evidenced by the quotations. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

When one spelling is attested, we have in the past deleted the unattested (or inadequately attested) variants, or reduced them to {{no entry}} redirects, since then there's not even the defense of "well w have to have an entry to cover the term even if no one spelling is attested", since one spelling is attested. Frankly, we've even deleted entries if no one spelling was attested, even when there were 3+ cites of different spellings. (It's possible we should be more permissive, though.) - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Replaced with a redirect. Kiwima (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)