Talk:palm
Wiktionary:Requests for verification discussion[edit]
From palm at Wiktionary:Requests 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.
"A handheld computing device used to store personal data such as calendars and phone numbers." There's palmtop, and there's the capitalised trademark Palm (WT:BRAND) for such a device, but is this really a generic lower-case term? Equinox ◑ 02:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Phones've made this mostly obsolete, but I've heard it. That said even in their heyday the more common term was PDA. Soap (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Long range etymology with Yenisseian[edit]
- Altaic and Nostratic are fringe theories and do not in general belong in etymology sections. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 22:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- According to census from 2015, Altaic in etymology sections is allowed. Are there any new consensus decisions? And is there census about Nostratic etymology sections? --At Yaragi (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- The community recently voted against including Altaic in general. Unless there is good reason to believe some Altaic/Nostratic connection would be likely (not just from one source, but more widely in the field), it could be considered, but otherwise there is no point. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Well, this makes me realy sad. I was just working on Korean-Turkic loan relations for the stem "tor-" in the word bogatyr, sadly everything has been deleted. What can I do now? I wanted to use these two sources: 1 p.77, 2 page 220. --At Yaragi (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any possibility to legitimize this action? This should be seen as an act of manipulation, and hence the voting turns out as unfair and dishonest. There should be a discussion on this. --At Yaragi (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not qualified enough to discuss whether those sources would be reliable enough, so I recommend you bring up the topic at WT:ES. As for the vote, the change was made by the very person who started the vote, and the change was made before the vote was started, so there was nothing wrong with it. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- The community recently voted against including Altaic in general. Unless there is good reason to believe some Altaic/Nostratic connection would be likely (not just from one source, but more widely in the field), it could be considered, but otherwise there is no point. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- According to census from 2015, Altaic in etymology sections is allowed. Are there any new consensus decisions? And is there census about Nostratic etymology sections? --At Yaragi (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
But you have to admit that the voting was clearly biased. Many users did not even voted. This is very militaristic. --At Yaragi (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's not like people can be forced to vote. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)