Talk:ĥanejo

RFV discussion: June–October 2015
—Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added one quotation, but I can't find any more. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Vikungen has added two more quotations (thanks!). Unfortunately, the China Radio International quotation does not seem to be durably archived, and it is not apparent to me whether or not the Rusia Esperantista Unio quotation is durably archived. (Is REGo published in print, or only online?) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is starting to get silly. 90% of the words on Wiktionary don't contain three quotations. If it matters though, REGo is published in print as well. Vikungen (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I think we just need one more quotation.
 * It's true that most words on Wiktionary don't have three citations—our entry for currently has none, for instance. But if someone were to challenge that entry, it would be very easy to find three citations to verify the word's existence. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, how come a non-existing word (not in PIV, ESPDIC nor Lernu) like viriĉo has an entry, even though it has not a single quotation?
 * And when you're talking about "challenging" an entry, is that what Μετάknowledge did? Without even proposing anything else.
 * Here is another quotation: http://www.ikue.org/cz/arkivo/a-57-1-05.htm Vikungen (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * viriĉo has an entry since no one has noticed it could be suspect. Thank you for adding it to RFV, to . We request attesting quotations only when an entry looks suspect. shows only 142 hits, which makes it look suspect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I've added that quotation to the entry. It now has enough citations to pass, assuming that other editors agree that REGo and Dio Benu are durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So for how long will it be like this? Vikungen (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Until someone closes the discussion, so anywhere from a week to a few months. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been over a month now.. How can we make someone with the authority to, close the discussion? It's impossible to contribute to the Esperanto Wiktionary if one is to wait half a year for a single entry to be accepted. Vikungen (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why no-one else has commented, but for my part I've held off on doing anything because (a) it does have three citations, which are being alleged to meet WT:CFI durability standards, but (b) I see no evidence that the first two of them actually do (that they actually exist in print). A side effect of delaying closure of a RFV is that sometimes more citations become available, but that hasn't happened here; there's only one book citation to be found via Google Books, no scholarly papers to be found via Scholar, no newspapers or journals to be found via Issuu, and nothing on Usenet AFAICS. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Tomorrow it will have been four months (4 months!) and if the word has not been approved by tomorrow I will remove the tag myself. It is impossible to contribute to Wiktionary if even a single non-controversial word is to take half a year to get approved.


 * RFV-failed, in the absence of evidence that the first two citations are durable in the WT:CFI sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)