Talk:प्रभाकीट

Hello! As we know, Indian dictionaries are very, very (extraneously) comprehensive, keeping words from Sanskrit that sometimes aren't even used in Hindi. These are often called "dictionary-only" words, since their existence is only ever found in dictionaries. I'm going to put the rfv back just so that someone can actually find a quote for the term. Smettems (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, even Monier-Williams lists the word as sourced from L., lexicographers, but not from any actual Sanskrit text. The DCS reference has only one reference, from the 16th century राजनिघण्टु, also a dictionary. Smettems (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . See WT:CFI: For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. There are 4 citations for both the Hindi and Sanskrit term. Yes, this [Hindi] might be "dictionary-only" and "coined" term, but it has the right to exist (I have added a lot of such terms here, and if such terms can't exist, they all should be deleted). The Hindi term is also marked as rare. For the Sanskrit term, it is even attested in New Sanskrit works. Pinging . 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Entries marked as "L" by Monier are okay. But those "citations" are four sources that mention this word, not four examples of the word actually being attested, which is the real requirement. Note the difference. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 06:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted. Seeing that many more such entries exist here (with many being added by myself), I think this entry should also exist; after all, we can't nullify a dictionary's claim that the word exists by saying no quotations or attestations. Show me, अधुना, इह, कुत्र, कुत्रापि, अत्र, etc. in Hindi quotations, and I'll believe that this word is a real exception which is not attested outside a dictionary. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 06:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is no different from, etc. These entries you've made are not against the rules but one thing to remember is that the "dictionary entries" for these words come from lexicographers who treat the Sanskrit vocabulary as an extension of Hindi/Marathi/Kannada vocabulary. The dictionary exists for the sake of the language, not the other way round... so while a dictionary is quite free to make up words through compounds and complex semantical chains, Wiktionary can assert its criteria for what qualifies as a word deserving an entry. So anyway, these entries are allowed but it should be up to the editor who creates these entries to decide whether it is desirable. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  08:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But I believe the concern is that this term (and many others found in such dictionaries) may be spurious. If it has no independent existence, then it does not actually exist. Smettems (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but wiktionary does have a tradition of including these terms as they can always be backed by a source even though they may not exist in the spoken language. So these entries are defended by precedent if nothing else. But whether or not it's desirable to include terms with no attestations and no known usage in the spoken language is another issue, as I said, and should be up to the editor. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 02:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your response. Smettems (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)