Talk:ПОС

Is this actually an acronym (i.e. pronounced ПОС not пэ-о-эс), and if so is it declinable or indeclinable? Benwing2 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's indeclinable but pron can go both ways, I think. I'm going to RFD it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–February 2016
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would we delete this? Unless you give a reasonable rationale, I vote keep. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a local abbreviation with little value for Russians and Russian learners, for which there could be hundreds other. I don't have a strong rationale at the moment. I'll wait for more input and let the community decide. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not send it to RfV, then? bd2412 T 14:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have doubts that the terms exists. I'll send, anyway. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Definition: Pskov Regional Assembly. Governed by WT:NSE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does look suspiciously like a word in a language. Reasonable doubt test? If there's reasonable doubt that it's a word in a language, keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is this a word in a language and Verizon is not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Verizon is - if it used attributively to identify the characteristic of a thing other than as a trademark. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Verizon is only used literally to refer to the company or its services, why is it not a word in a language while ПОС is a word in a language, especially given that ПОС probably has no "attributive"/figurative/non-literal use? Like, both Verizon and ПОС each refer to a human organization, one commercial and one non-commercial. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dan. It seems silly that a derived word of an organization can pass CFI, but the organization itself can fail it (I know others respond to this anomaly by saying we should fail both; I say keep both). Pur ple back pack 89   15:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Start a vote then. Equinox ◑ 15:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I started a BP discussion about this "donut hole" at Beer parlour/2016/January Pur ple back pack 89  15:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Dan's comment was aimed at me, I'm saying I think it is a word in a language. But I don't want to weight in too heavily on a debate about a Russian word. Even the nominator's unsure if we should delete this or not. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: No real explanation how this violates SOP or any other aspect of CFI. If it is truly a very uncommon regionalism, it would fail RfV, but commonality isn't really an RfD matter. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Purple B. and because I think we should keep acronyms in general. Maybe a vote on 'treat all entity as we treat personal names' might not be a bad idea. Korn &#91;kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n&#93; (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RFD kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January 2016–April 2017
--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A few cites?
 * http://pln-pskov.ru/health/subject/1015.html
 * http://www.psksu.ru/project/index/3462
 * http://kprf.pskov.ru/index.php/201601213225/poslednie_novosti/_otchyot_o_rabote_fraktsii_kprf_v_pskovskom_oblastnom_sobranii_deputatov.html
 * Pretty sure these are the same POS. I did also find other POS'es, probably not the same one. AliHautala (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * RFV Failed. - TheDaveRoss 15:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)