Talk:/s

Really?
Is this really translingual, what languages other than English use it? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–August 2011
Do we allow HTML tags and other syntax to be part of our dictionary? ( test  rendered as ) If so, should they be verified as being in common use, and how should they be used? At the end, the beginning, or the middle of a clause or statement? And is this the correct entry to use, or should it be relegated to the unsupported titles appendix instead, where it can use the &lt; and &gt; tags in the title? TeleComNasSprVen 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Entry looks really wrong; if it were actually in use and attestable as such we'd keep it, but I can't imagine it's the case. HTML isn't considered to be any 'language' so it doesn't meet CFI, but it's claiming to be humorous use (in English) of faux-HTML. But... nah. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the Web page listed in the entry's References section, the pagetitle is correct (sans angle brackets). This is not an HTML tag, but something (if our entry — and said Web page — is correct) people use to tag their sentences to indicate sarcasm online. (Compare, though the analogies are imperfect, quote: used to tag a quotation, and undefined: used to tag something lighthearted.) It is English and carries meaning, so seems to be inclusible if verifiable. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard the same for strikethroughs (as in "I did not mean to say that"). TeleComNasSprVen 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be in NS:0 if it's an unsupported title. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it, as long as it's used in running English text. DAVilla 06:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clocked out DCDuring TALK 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)