Talk:productrix
Add topic
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.
VexVector has now twice added these plural forms to productrix, which I had created with {{en-noun|!}}, i.e., “productrix (plural not attested)”. I wrote the following edit summary for my first revert (15 June): “I cannot find a single result for ‘productrixes’ using Google; are you sure that these are attested (hence why it stated ‘plural not attested’)?” VexVector re-added them on 25 June (today), writing, “Ngram-Viewer has the Latinate plural, and I don't see a reason to exclude the Anglicized.” Then I reverted again: “‘productrices’ is used in Latin (Ngram-Viewer does not distinguish Latin in English books), but is there actually an attested English plural?” I have restored them now with {{rfv-term}}, and believe that if they are not attested, they should not be listed (that is why we have the ⟨!⟩ option). J3133 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong about starring them, unlinked. This would remove the stubbornness, such editors would have to think why it is mentioned but not linked. When people begin here, there is a drive for completion, as frequently seen in the “duplicate etymology” problem, and they have to learn for it to end, and uncertainty to remain (→ ambiguity tolerance). Fay Freak (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- productrices is a French word and turns up in various English texts: [1] So Ngram is not a useful source of info.
- I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary to insist on three durably archived cites for every plural form, but let's at least try to find some evidence for each term here. This, that and the other (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other: I do not insist on cites for regular plurals, but these do not seem to have ever been attested. J3133 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
RFV-failed - looked but didn't find. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)