Talk:belonephobia

RFV

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

Phobia of needles and pins. I've found one citation. There might be two more, but it's very hard to search because almost everything is just saying "belonephobia means xxx" without using the word. Anyone? See also discussion at [1] where creator doesn't really understand CFI. Equinox ◑ 02:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• [2], [3]. Not sure about the first link. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, the second one is a mention. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not in any way violated the CFI and Equinox has yet to show me in what way I did. Equinox refuses to accept a journal article's use of the word or any other resource I've attempted to provide. The word shows use Google Ngram Viewer for over 50 years. It's defined the same way in every source I can find both online and off. It's mainly in medical texts because it's a medical condition. Equinox states that "WT:CFI requires that you provide a citation from a durably archived source that shows the term being used to convey meaning in the language." in the prior discussion. The journal is both an online and in print medical journal. The abstract is at PubMed. The journal has been published for 40 years, so I've guessing it's a pretty valid source. Most Wiktionary articles do not have references, and I do not understand why this word is coming under fire.

When asked to provide references for agorophobia, Equinox gave me a Google Books link on agoraphobia at my request, and said that if I could find 3 quotations from print sources it could be added but nowhere on the Wiktionary site can I find any information about this being even a suggestion, much less a rule. A Google Books search on belonephobia produces 828 results. The word is used and defined the same way in every source. The results for agoraphobia are the same...lots of definitions.

Even though dictionaries and encyclopedias are only supplementary references, I'm imagine that a 550+ page encyclopedia devoted to phobias (The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties) might be a good supplement to a medical journal describing a new method for approaching patients that have the disease, which is my primary source.

Even Ungoliant's second response is from a work of fiction and is still defined in the book...the same way. So again I ask, why, if every source defines a word in the same way and the word has been used for years, should it not be in Wiktionary? Zephalis (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got it a bit wrong, this process says "I the nominator am not sure that this word is in use in the given language, and therefore seek citations" it doesn't say "I think this word is bogus/invalid", that would either be WT:RFD or a speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks cited to me. Astral (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Zephalis, you don't seem to understand the use-mention distinction. But we've got good citations now, so looks okay. Equinox ◑ 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll call it passed; striking, detagging.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)