Talk:Chiayi

Request for verification

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.

---

Keep --Anatoli 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This also looks like an issue for RFD. I think it is safe to assume that the nominator is not questioning the existence of the term. -- Visviva 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't rushing to add this to this page. I never would have noticed it if it had not shown up and lingered long in Category:Entries_with_level_or_structure_problems, as a dozen or so gazetteer entries have. I thought this was the page for attributive use attestation? Is this an entry that doesn't need it? I thought it would under current CFI. DCDuring TALK 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO the problem is that there is no real consensus among editors as to what form of citation would be acceptable. Because the place-name criteria are poorly drafted and were never the product of consensus in the first place, opinions differ widely among editors as to a) what sort of citations are actually necessary under the criterion (byword? etymon? or any use as a noun adjunct?), and b) whether the criterion deserves any respect in the first place. When there is no consensus on what form of attestation is needed, RFV cannot serve its intended purpose, and what should have been a simple matter of citation devolves into a flurry of "keeps" and "deletes" (vide supra). Which is to say: whether we have this discussion on RFV or RFD, it's going to be an RFD discussion. Having the discussion here just creates a mess for whatever poor soul ends up closing it. -- Visviva 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

al place nams4inclsn!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You must be very proud, Ruakh. --Anatoli 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not ashamed. —Ruakh_TALK 03:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I already said that you must be very proud deleting someone's work. Does the place not exist in your opinion or it doesn't exist in English? Why RFV has become a signal to delete the entry? What was wrong with it, do you care to explain - citations, significance, attributive usage? I need to know before you destroy more. Anatoli 03:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting well-written entries rarely if ever does anything at all to improve Wiktionary, but it is an effective means of driving away talented editors. —Stephen 06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, we have to have standards: standards of formatting, standards of accuracy, standards of verifiability, standards of relevance. By "well-written entries" I imagine you mean the first? But if an editor's "talent" is generating well-formatted entries that don't belong here, then I'm not sure what we can do. —Ruakh_TALK 14:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations demonstrating attributive usage. —Ruakh_TALK 14:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Old RFV

@Ruakh Hey Ruakh. I saw some of your argumentation above. Does Chiayi pass RFV now? If not, I will keep adding sources/citations.
I am engaged in a long-term plan to increase the reliability and scope of Wiktionary's coverage of geographical terms related to China and Taiwan. I have been doing it by adding images of maps; adding citations from books, journals, magazines and websites; attempting to clarify etymologies; and strictly differentiating alternative forms from synonyms. Let me know if you have any guidance you can give me. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January 2021

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Chiayi

I'm pretty sure that this term has now met the threshold, but there was an old decision where it failed RFV for some complex reasons. There were a lot of complex concepts on that page about usage in the attributive sense, etc etc. I'm not clear whether the citations I have given are good enough for Wiktionary. I can probably find more if needed for either sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Speedily kept. Please stop wasting our time. It failed RFV more than 11 years ago under radically different rules from those in force today. Your only guide to whether entries belong here should be WT:CFI. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge You wrote the statement "Please stop wasting our time." Slow down and look at this from my perspective. I want to know what I'm doing on Wiktionary and I want to know that the old RFV really doesn't have force anymore. What else should I do but check with this board? It wasn't a waste of time for me, because now I know that what I've done on the Chiayi page is apparently good enough. I'm not a Wiktionary policy wonk. I'm just trying to build a dictionary. Have mercy. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Actually, the Taiwanese meaning is not attested, having only one citation. Now that you have raised this RFV, it will be deleted in a month if we do not get two more. Kiwima (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will work on it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima Hey Kiwima- thanks for your responses to my RFVs. I want to make really solid cases for Wiktionary-grade attestation for the entries I'm making (based on strong cites), and you are really helping me a lot with understanding the logic of that process. Can I ask you: how the heck did the 'city' definition for Chiayi pass RFV in January? Which citations were "durably archived"? Did you believe/assume that the cites from 1) The Nation, 2) Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, and 3) Forbes were durably archived? Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC) (modified)

@Geographyinitiative: Your welcome (I guess). I am probably not the best person to ask about what makes for a durably archived source. The strongest cites are the Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, and the 2007 book, Taiwan. The weakest is Aruba Today. Basically, if it appears in print as well as on line, you are probably safe. Academic journals are also good. Kiwima (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)