Talk:parcelcopter
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFV discussion: April 2015–January 2016
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
One use on BGC in single quotes, which I guess is fine but not great support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Abundantly attestable at Google News going back at least to December 2013, though it is unclear which of the sources are durably archived. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hotword? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not if the December 2013 cite is durably archived. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- As you know, there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't. So... I guess we vote on it? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dhl-parcelcopter-paketkopter-amazon-prime-air-drone-528873. I guess it depends on whether ibtimes.co.uk deletes its pages or not. I have no idea whatsoever. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Re: "there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't": As per common practice, Google books and Usenet generally count as "permanently recorded media", a term used in WT:ATTEST. So "no criteria whatsoever" is rather inaccurate. I don't remember anyone challenging these two items as core of "permanently recording media"; archived RFV discussions should confirm that this has been mentioned multiple times as tentative criteria. The remaining confusion is about what lies in the outer layers of "permanently recorded media": maybe even protuberances? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- No formal or written criteria then; WT:CFI doesn't mention it at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, WT:CFI#Attestation does cover what I said, in this (boldface mine): "As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online." I admit that CFI could better connect these sentences with the term "permanently recorded media". And I find the phrasing unfortunate; our argument for Usenet was not archiving by Google but rather the massive independent replication of Usenet. Certainly could be improved. I could try to do some drafting and propose a fix but when I create vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia to remove what blatantly contradicts our practice, almost no one attends, and one person opposes on petty grounds, that is kind of demotivating. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- No formal or written criteria then; WT:CFI doesn't mention it at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Re: "there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't": As per common practice, Google books and Usenet generally count as "permanently recorded media", a term used in WT:ATTEST. So "no criteria whatsoever" is rather inaccurate. I don't remember anyone challenging these two items as core of "permanently recording media"; archived RFV discussions should confirm that this has been mentioned multiple times as tentative criteria. The remaining confusion is about what lies in the outer layers of "permanently recorded media": maybe even protuberances? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not if the December 2013 cite is durably archived. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hotword? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Waiting around indeed helps. I'd now call this RFV-passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)