Talk:manwoman
See also Talk:man-woman. - -sche (discuss) 03:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
Scannos constitute a large portion of the limited number of Google Books hits this gets. I am doubtful enough citations remain to attest all four of the entry's senses. (Some scannos are of "man-woman" in phrases like "the ideal man-woman relationship", but others are of the entirely ambiguous designations "man-woman" and "woman-man" which I comment on here.) - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- manwomen needs citing as well, or else it's a case of plural unattested. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The only way I see this passing RFV is if we combine the senses into one very broad sense. Under that broad sense are three citations of manwoman; menwomen has a citation as well. Scannos make it hard to find more citations. - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. There were only three citations, and they used three rather disparate senses. Replaced with
{{no entry}}. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)