Talk:thelitis

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

thelitis

Also (deprecated template usage) thelion and (deprecated template usage) thelium by the same person. None are in the OED. Nothing obvious on Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in the process of creating / editing these entries as part of the process of removing (deprecated template usage) thelion from Wikipedia under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If you did not see any valid references, it's because I have not completed the entries. As for this term, if you did not find it in the OED, you did not look at the FIRST supplement of 1933.

Djdubay (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• • We don't accept words that are found only in dictionaries (see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. We need cites from the real world. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I checked thelion when I first saw it. If you use a search that filters out most of the "the lion" scannos, there are enough hits in Google Books ("the thelion"). I haven't checked the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Again, the purpose of this is to remove thelion from Wikipedia, as it is not a dictionary. So I've gone ahead and created dictionary entries of that word, and a couple related words that were found in the process. Are you really in the habit of challenging words while they are STILL being edited?? I intend to locate / cite additional references, unless you delete the pages before I complete them.

Djdubay (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Are you really in the habit of challenging words while they are STILL being edited" there's no limit to the amount a page can be edited, so that's irrelevant. Also, if it's not valid, it won't matter how many or how few edits there are. Just because something is not valid on Wikipedia doesn't automatically make it valid here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To understand the hypersensitivity here regarding transwiki entries, you have to know something about the long, pathetic history of mutated monstrosities regular foisted upon us in the name of cleaning up Wikipedia, like a chicken with three legs and no head that no one has the decency to put out of its misery...

That said, I would say that thelitis is attestable as well here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure about thelium, since the sheer quantity of hyphenation artifacts from epithelium and mesothelium makes it hard to find anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Response No problem, but to put everything into context here, I have created my user page, which has a full discussion of who I am and what I'm looking to do, here. I do ask you take my gentle humor in its intended context.  :-) I think that "hypersensitivity" is a good word, here. But honestly, my "welcome, glad you joined us" was a curt note that this entry is not in the OED (which it is), and then I'm told that the OED isn't good enough. Oh, really? And I'm pointed to a policy that clearly does accept these entries. Yes, maybe Joe Shmoe's paperback "Cheap wordz" dictionary selling for $1.95 might not be a valid reference, but the OED is distinct that it has citations for each entry. Merriam-Webster maintains an extensive citation file, and other than the infamous "dord", every entry in their unabridged (New International) and Collegiate editions are well attested, though the individual citations, unlike the OED are not published. However, if you write them nicely and explain what you're doing, (which I plan on doing for you) they are more than happy to provide those citations. So worry not, my friends.

• • Comment: Actually, there are a small number of words that have zero citations in the OED. The best known is probably abacinate, apparently a back-formation from abacination. Choor monster (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yum! :-) As for transwiki, yes, I've seen how some of the garbage I was trying to delete has made its way here, and I'll be correcting that in a moment. Unless someone else beats me first. My talk page should be open if you have further concerns. Thanks!! Djdubay (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Being in the OED doesn't exempt an entry from WT:CFI, no. And I'm pretty sure there are some OED terms in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. But if you're that sure that all of these are citable, there's no reason to oppose this RFV, is there? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed. Word added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms#T. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Recreated in February 2019 with three citations found. Equinox ◑ 18:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)