Talk:ศุข

RFV discussion: August 2021–May 2022
Like its alleged Sanskrit antecedent,, I can find no trace of this as an ordinary word. I can only find evidence of it as a Thai nickname, which is excluded from Wiktionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should a Thai nickname be excluded from Wiktionary? —Mahāgaja · talk 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See About_Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and reasonable, I guess. In theory English nicknames are similarly unlimited, David might be Dave or Davey or D-Man or Big D or (if he's known for wearing glasses) Glasses or Four-Eyes or (based on his disposition) Feisty or Mad Dog, etc, etc. I think there was a discussion before about whether to delete an English nickname on that basis (not a nickname for a specific celebrity, like R-Pattz, but an entry defined as just "a nickname" a la "a male given name"), but I can't find it or the outcome. - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've now found an entry for the word with this spelling in an 1892 dictionary, which I've recorded on the page. As it seems that I had not entered an RfV on the page (I must have failed to save my edit), can I now withdraw this RfV, or do I need to insert the RfV notice? --RichardW57 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI + WT:WDL: Thai is a WDL and requires 3 uses and not a single mention in an old dictionary.
 * @RichardW57 The IP's right, can you bring 3 citations for this term? Svartava2 (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But I'm not claiming that the word is modern Thai! --RichardW57 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Thai of 1892 is still indisputably Thai [th]. If it belongs under that language code, it ought to be attestable just like any other Thai word. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI, WT:WDL, and also WT:About Thai, don't differentiate between older and modern Thai. So three uses would be needed. Similar, there's no differentiation of older and modern New English, so hapaxes only occuring in Shakespeare can't meet Wiktionary's attestion requirement. But as RichardW57 started the RFV request and RichardW57 wanted to withdraw it, it possibly can simply be closed. However, anyone could re-add it to RFV... --Myrelia (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Google found me evidence that the word existed, but nothing citable as a use or even a mention. I had to read the dictionaries myself to find the entries. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed after quite some time. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)