Talk:audibilities

RFV discussion: March 2022

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

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

---

audibilities

This has been orphaned from audibility by somebody, so it may as well be checked out. DonnanZ (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the headword template at audibility. A simple Google Books search confirms that the plural obviously exists; does it really need to go through the formalities? This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the edit history, and it apparently has been without a plural from its creation in 2006. The conversion to new headword templates was all done by bots, so it may just be that no one ever thought to add one. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no let-off, if the usual three quotations are provided I'll be happy. DonnanZ (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed by clear widespread use ([1], [2]). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That user is jumping the gun as usual. I could have removed the RFV myself. So where's the quotes? DonnanZ (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

[3] Thanks for adding them. Equinox ◑ 10:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Donnanz: No, I'm not jumping the gun, especially not "as usual". As to where the quotes are: You're free to add them. In the future, please refrain from opening RFVs for words that can trivially be cited; it puts unnecessary workload on other editors. RFV is not {{rfquote}}. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a problem here anyway. As I raise very few RFVs, I will not be following your "advice". DonnanZ (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)