Talk:deca-ampère

RFV discussion: December 2020–June 2023

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.

---

deca-ampère

RFV-failed. Only relevant hit (I found) is [1] (and another from the same encyclopedia). 70.172.194.25 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@J3133 I'm sincerely sorry for the inconvenience, but when searching very thoroughly to make sure I didn't miss anything, I was just barely able to find three independent citations, so I think this should be restored and considered cited. Also these edits should be undone (I can't do it myself due to an edit filter). The other deleted ones should stay deleted as even with quite thorough searching in multiple corpora I couldn't substantiate them convincingly. Again, my apologies. 70.172.194.25 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, strike that. I was right originally. Both Winkler Prins articles are by J. A. Prins, so they're not independent of the other J. A. Prins article. So this should stay deleted. 70.172.194.25 00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

decaseconde

CFI-mandated discussion

Ends January 19, 23:59 (UTC)

Cited using a combination of durably archived sources and Internet sources. That said, I'm not sure there are three quotations that are both durably archived and clearly uses rather than mentions. So I'll open this to a two-week discussion, as mandated by WT:CFI in situations where online citations are in question. Should these citations be considered valid? (Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): 70.172.194.25 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

PTT Studieblad seems legit. De Standaard seems like a mention with a usage example. Deca is 10 also seems to be a mention. Twitter is not considered durably archived according to Wiktionary policy. Probably not a mention, though likely sort of close: "indeed, 400 decaseconds seems like a better unit" sounds like he's discussing the word, don't know what he replied to though. Twitter 2 (same durable archived issue) says "(x-as decaseconden, y-as ontladingen per minuut)" which describes the axes on a graph. This seems like no more of a use than "2 milk" on my shopping list. Twitter 3 is a use. Twitter 4.. Somehow I'm glad the video won't load. Not sure the quote is a use, but the Twitter user later replies to himself with a poll that seems to have a clear use. [2] is a use but not durably archived according to Wiktionary policy. [3] (same durable archiving issue) says "Als we de seconde gebruiken als de basis eenheid voor het metrieke systeem dan wordt een minuut een decaseconde, een uur wordt 10 kiloseconden..." (if we use the second as the basis for a metric system, a minute will be a decasecond, an hour 10 kiloseconds...) so it's unclear if they are using decaseconde in the intended sense. [4] is quite possibly durably archived as it's the answer key to a test which quite likely also exists in print. Whether it's a use, I'm not sure. Like most of the education I enjoyed, seems like a poorly designed test. There's an entry on Dutch Wiktionary which has been around slightly longer and was created by User:Romaine.
Another mention can be found at [5], unclear if durably archived. But the PTT use makes me think this likely could be cited, but only from old books/manuals. Kind of like CVE which study books from my school consistently used - and thankfully, just as I told my teacher back in the day, that word died because it's even more stupid than decaseconde.
Yay unhinged rant. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. I will respond to a few points:

• "not considered durably archived according to Wiktionary policy": This is true, though the policy changed last year so that the community can now decide to allow (or reject) such sources on a case-by-case basis. (You likely already know this, just making sure we're all on the same page.)
• "it's unclear if they are using decaseconde in the intended sense": They kinda are, but you need to read more context to see. The idea is to examine what it would look like to redesign the time system from the ground up based on 10^n seconds instead of the more "arbitrary" 60 seconds per minute, etc. In this hypothetical the definition of a second would have to be changed to be 1/100000 of a day; a decasecond would still be 10 "seconds" (using a different definition of a "second"). A little confusing, but it makes sense.
• "But the PTT use makes me think this likely could be cited, but only from old books/manuals.": Would you know where to find digitized manuals like that?

To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion about whether to include this term or not based on the current citations. I'm mostly just trying to get this resolved because it's been open for over 2 years and the RFVN backlog has gotten really bad. 70.172.194.25 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea where to find those. Sometimes on archive.org, but I already looked there. https://www.circuitsonline.net/forum/view/128278 has another not-durably-archived use. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Added another quotation, from the journal Nederlands Dagblad Variant+. Assuming no more quotations show up, would you prefer to keep or delete this, all things considered? 70.172.194.25 19:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, this makes it even more likely that it can be cited, but technically it currently only has two clearly good cites. (and a few that seem to be mentions or where it's unconfirmed if they are "durably archived") User:MarcoSwart, can you think of any other place to look? — Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You may have to go to a library to look in older technical publications. Dutch law is very clear that "decaseconde" is allowed usage (art. 3.1 mentions "seconde", art. 12.1 mentions "deca-" as a prefix that according to art. 12.2 can be combined with all units mentioned in art. 3.1). Why not simply "durably archive" one of the uses already found? MarcoSwart (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be inclined to let this pass now. I am not even sure if I would rule the Standaard citation a mention, it is a comment on the utility of the unit (e.g. like an instrument). Cf. "The decasecond could be rather convenient to" and "The halberd could be rather convenient to". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we marking this as passed so we can close the thread? Vininn126 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

decasteradiaal

RFV-failed. No relevant hits. 70.172.194.25 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

deciampère

RFV-failed. Only relevant hit (I found) is [6]. 70.172.194.25 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

deciseconde

Cited. 70.172.194.25 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RFV-passed. 70.172.194.25 22:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

decisteradiaal

RFV-failed. No relevant hits. 70.172.194.25 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

Dutch. Theoretically possible but apparently unattested SI units. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)