Talk:انتیم

Attestation
– It does need to be removed because it doesn't satisfy WT:ATTEST – it cannot be counted as an Urdu lemma. Not even Fallon or Platts have attested it. If they did, I would have simply added a Template:rfv. Do not revert my edit, until there are 3 solid references. نعم البدل (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @نعم البدل A simple search suggest something else, whether a dictionary has it or not is of no consequence. Word0151 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Provide the references. Bog-standard google links do not count. You need to show them being used in an actual sentence, three times. نعم البدل (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * – Could you please mediate. Word0151 is failing to provide any references, and is plain edit-warring. نعم البدل (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل For whatever reason, you remove this entry and for, you add an rfv tag?. Please think for a moment what are you even doing Word0151 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * – Read WT:ATTEST. Once you have done that, bring 3 references for "انتیم", which you can't seem to be able to do. It's simple as that. I kept because it was attested by Platts, so that's once reference – you need to bring 2 more for that. On a side note, do  verify if the word is actually attested in Urdu, before adding it to Wiktionary, or preferably don't at all, if you're not familiar with Urdu. نعم البدل (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل A word doesn't become cited just because its in dictionary, i think its you who should read. And having three perfect text quotes is not necessary if it can be proved the word is in use. Niyojan, i don't it is. But antim yes Word0151 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A word doesn't become cited just because its in dictionary – Did I say the references had to be dictionaries? I said give me 3 good references as per WT:ATTEST.
 * And having three perfect text quotes is not necessary if it can be proved the word is in use – Then prove or it! Am I speaking French or something? Prove if that it is widely attested in Urdu. You can't, neither for "انتیم" nor "نیوجن‎‎". A lot of users have been adding Sanskrit borrowings in Urdu lately, without actually verifying or providing references for it. نعم البدل (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Man, how stupid you are? I criticized you on why the entry should not be removed and have a rfv template added and you backfired all on me. Word0151 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل Word0151 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, so would like me to remove both entries instead or would you prefer I kept at least one up, because one of them has been partially attested? Because honestly speaking, I'd rather just remove them, especially seen as you can't provide any references/usage of the words. نعم البدل (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As i said antim can be verified that it is in use by just an google search. So it should be kept, but i have added it in rfv-others, so whether it is attested or not should be discussed there. Why do you insist on removing it. A fight for the most trifling thing really. Word0151 (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As i said antim can be verified that it is in use by just an google search – Okay, so give me three links from the google search that prove the word is used in Urdu. Because when I tried to verify it, only results in Persian came up, not Urdu...
 * So it should be kept, but i have added it in rfv-others, so whether it is attested or not – what do you mean "attested or not", do you understand what "attestation" means? Of course every word has to be attestable. If it's attestable then, the word is in use, and can be added to Wiktionary. If it can't be attested, then it's not in use, ergo, not Urdu.
 * Why do you insist on removing it – Because it's not valid, policies are there for a reason. نعم البدل (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل  Antim a movie, also has been transliterated to Urdu script; Platts dictionary also has it.
 * You never gave a good argument, i added rfv template and you removed. The point is not it being attested or not, it had to be transferred to rfv discussions, and i had already done it. Why did you not discussed there about its verifiability? Word0151 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * – first one's not good enough, neither is the second one. They're both used in a compound for the word not plainly "انتیم".
 * You never gave a good argument, i added rfv template and you removed – Because it's not attested by any means. Read WT:ATTEST. Please do follow up with suitable references for the words. نعم البدل (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh ffs. the word is not "", equally rarely used in Urdu, but the latter attested in Urdu. 🤦‍♂️ That's why it's good to verify the lemmas(!) نعم البدل (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل If one had think to like your reasoning, he would have delete both the entries even after this realisation. You last reply is in contradiction with all your arguments above. Though i agree two of my references were incorrect Word0151 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had it enough with you. If you care about the language so much, then next time, make sure you spell it correctly and make sure you can bring references. Ie. Do a little bit of research – it won't kill you. Next time, I'll simply remove the word if it doesn't satisfy WT:ATTEST and you can take it up with an admin or someone. نعم البدل (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل You really made a fuss of everything. I added the rfv template to request its verification and thus it had to be discussed here . This was only the only issue, you never argued against this but kept whining over being attestable or not. I am not bidden to bring references. Word0151 (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You say: equally rarely used in urdu, but one is attested. WOW Word0151 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * – is different to . I didn't realise you made a spelling error until you mentioned "antim sanskar". You know why I didn't understand what "antim" meant? Because virtually no one uses that word in Urdu. Go do a survey, no one will know what it means. If you were a native Urdu speaker, you'd realise.
 * I am not bidden to bring references Yes you are, as per WT:ATTEST. If you don't know much about Urdu, then please by all means – do not contribute to the language.
 * You say: equally rarely used in urdu, but one is attested – You're lucky WT:ATTEST just asks for 3 references from any time period. Otherwise I dare you to give me three modern references which have used the term "اَنْتِم" within the last 5 or 10 years. You could barely give the references for "اَنْتِیم".
 * Have a nice day. نعم البدل (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever, you again didn't answer my question. It had to be discussed here, please try going there once. This was my only problem.
 * And no you don't even say how i am wrong, you just add a line to it. Oops now instead of the original problem you will focus on this. Word0151 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @نعم البدل Word0151 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * – It had to be discussed here – assuming you had anything worthwhile saying or sharing. نعم البدل (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, but do take care to discuss there, if already has the rfv template; instead of removing on your own. No longer too i care for this trifling entry Word0151 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Friend you didn't had to redirect the page, also. Its an alternative form/misspelling.
 * Fine, but do take care to discuss there, if already has the rfv template; instead of removing on your own. No longer too i care for this trifling entry Word0151 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Friend you didn't had to redirect the page, also. Its an alternative form/misspelling.