Talk:福縛

A made-up word?
Also: 福縛の書籍. Hbrug 01:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hbrug, I'm sure it is. I'll put it in Requests for Verification and when nobody can verify it, it will be deleted. Thanks for the link too--that and the pages that point to it look fishy too. Haplology 03:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

福縛
Thanks to Hbrug for pointing this out. From the magic-obsessed IP user's most productive period, this is a made-up word. Searching Google Books gives us books in Chinese. It has the signature issues of quality as well. Furthermore I assert that 福縛の書籍 is SoP (literally "book of spells") in addition to being made with a made-up word. Same for the pages that link to it: Special:WhatLinksHere/福縛の書籍. A quick search for "magic book" in a dictionary reveals that the real words for magic book are グリモワール, 魔術書, 奥義書, 魔導書, or 魔法書. Haplology 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gah, what a dog's breakfast. Shot 福縛の書籍 on sight as SOP and pure rubbish to boot, now going through the list at Special:WhatLinksHere/福縛の書籍 to do the same.


 * Hint to other editors for identifying possible SOP Japanese entries: Any Japanese entry with の in it and that was created by an anon should be reviewed. の in Japanese is like English, only backwards: A of B in English becomes BのA in Japanese.  But just like English , the inclusion of の in a headword is a suggestion of possible SOP-ness.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And as a PS: gets all of 19 hits, only one with any Japanese, and that one is full of scannos and only mentions 福縛 in a case where the two characters belong to separate words.   gets six hits, five in Chinese and one (confusingly) in English (but that one with no context or visible text at all).  This just isn't a Japanese word, except possibly in the world of manga, where protologisms and borrowings are rife.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Having seen some of the IP's other dubious entries. I'd say we should start putting constraints on the entries this person creates. From now on, all obscure terms like this need to be cited by the author, if they cannot be cited, they will be shot on sight, as we cannot waste any more time trying to verify every single term he/she creates ourselves. It's just too time-consuming. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * James, thank you, I certainly agree. There seem to be two IP users who are quite interested in magic, fantasy, and Japanese, but who have very limited Japanese skills, and no apparent understanding of WT:CFI.  Coming up with a faster way of dealing with their copious additions would be a good idea.
 * A question for you: what with me being a new admin and it occurring to me that I might be moving too fast with 福縛の書籍, how long should I let uncitable entries like this sit at RFV before deleting them? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed. Haplology 17:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)