Talk:colloquy

Why rfv?

The rfv template ominously threatens that this entry may not belong in Wiktionary and that it may be deleted. My question is, why??? Why would the word colloquy not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion??? — Lumbercutter 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This entry has passed Wiktionary's verification process without prejudice.

This means that, while adequate citation may not have been recorded, discussion has concluded that usage is widespread and content is accurate
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion

---

colloquy

The present definition is “A formal conversation or conference”. I agree that this word exists, but I’m unsure about the way it is defined. Dictionary.com and the American Heritage Dictionary suggest that there are three distinct senses to this word. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So add the def.'s, old boy. Then you can become bold boy!  :) -- Thisis0 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I’ll leave this for others to cite — I’m off! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from #Found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (1996) hereinafter:

Found in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1996)

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary states “Colloquy: 1. a conversational exchage; dialogue. 2. a conference.” Admittedly, this is only 2 distinct definitions, but supports the hypothesis that there is more than one. Good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansylhein (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can attest to widespread use of the legal sense. bd2412 T 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)