Talk:cuntboy

RFV discussion: November 2020–December 2021

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.

---

cuntboy, sense 2

"A young man who has a vagina; a female-to-male transgender who has not had bottom surgery, or a character in speculative fiction." This is actually three senses for some reason listed as one; the first is oxymoronic, second and third are both cryptic (may also involve WT:FICTION). Are any attested? Ya hemos pasao (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The first is not oxymoronic at all, and the second, which is not cryptic and doesn't involve WT:FICTION, is a specific instance of the first. But whether the word is attested with that meaning is of course the crucial question. Sense 1 is the only sense I'm familiar with myself. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• RFV-failed —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 07:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am reverting the sense because the word clearly is used that way - I invite you to make a google search; it appears even more common than the first meaning from pornographic websites to transgender forums. Language doesn't care if you're transphobic, you can't just wish words out of existence. 88.97.42.115 15:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Moreover, the examples clearly demonstrate the widespread use of the term. 88.97.42.115 15:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  You need 3 durably archived quotes to re-enter this sense. Non-durably archived google search results don't count. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  I just added one, I hope that's enough. 88.97.42.115 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, Fytcha removed that quotation. The sense would fail anyway, since 2 of the cites would be from 2019 and not pass the "spanning at least a year" rule. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have access to that work and from the context it did not become clear which sense the name is used in. As such, I don't consider it as conveying meaning.

  On this topic: Do we have a way of denoting why a particular citation (e.g. on Citations:cuntboy) does not support inclusion as per WT:ATTEST? Fytcha (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Fytcha: There's the use-mention distinction criteria, see WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 03:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Svartava2: I know that; I meant whether we have a way of annotating specific quotes on a citations page with the reason why they don't suffice as attestations, like the third quote here with something along the lines "is a mention". Fytcha (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  We can put them in brackets to indicate that the quote is a mention, not a use. This is roughly the practice of OED, although it draws the line between uses and mentions differently to us. Of course, whether anyone actually understands the meaning of the brackets is a different matter. This, that and the other (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  The parameter |footer= can be used to add a comment, if desired. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)