Talk:finish
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFV discussion[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense: A score similar to a touchdown in the game of scuffleball, worth four points. --Downunder 20:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- We don't actually have a verification staff. Contributors who add senses are expected to provide the evidence. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- lol, I know. this anon added it over 6 years ago. Actually, I'm just gonna delete this...scuffleball the game barely exists, terminology of the sport even less so. --Downunder 23:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- removed as tosh --Downunder 23:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is really that citing one sense of one term takes more effort than creating a dozen other terms. I suspect a decent percentage of things that fail RFV could pass based on actual usage. And I include in there things that I've nominated here. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- It makes it easier to delete something if we know that, for example, there are no books, scholar, news or usenet hits for it and that the first tem web hits for "finish scuffleball" are all dictionary hits. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Per Downunder, if we could even cite scuffleball that would be a start. It's only linked once from the main namespace, and even that link could be plausibly removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It makes it easier to delete something if we know that, for example, there are no books, scholar, news or usenet hits for it and that the first tem web hits for "finish scuffleball" are all dictionary hits. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Problem is really that citing one sense of one term takes more effort than creating a dozen other terms. I suspect a decent percentage of things that fail RFV could pass based on actual usage. And I include in there things that I've nominated here. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm reopening this and putting it under my own responsibility. I can find only one single citation on google groups. Nothing on news or books. -- Prince Kassad 01:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Re-striking. Despite Prince Kassad's last comment, he doesn't seem to have taken any relevant action (such as restoring the sense, or adding the citation he mentions). —RuakhTALK 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)