Talk:Archives

Archives
German genitive nominated in as "Not the correct genitive, see also de:Archives." I would send it to RFV but some people opposed RFV for inflected forms. Archiv lists Archivs as another genitive. Is this Archives attested and, if not, do we want to keep it anyway? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking on Boogle Gooks, I find that it is attested but can probably be safely labeled "archaic". Of all the sources I found that use the genitive Archives, all but one are from before 1835. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added three cites, so keep. I've removed it from the headword line of, though, since it's archaic, and listed it as an alternative form of instead. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dan Polansky: Let's assume it wouldn't be attested. Why should one keep it? The only argument which comes to my mind is this one: compared with other words the genitive form could exist or could have exist in theory. But is this the case?
 * @Angr: 1. one usually doesn't look at [in]flected words, i.e. one would visit Archivs, so that's a bad idea. (When removing it from the head-line, the form could at least be mentioned under "Usage notes" or something.) 2. see Archives, an example from 2006 got added. So it's not archaic. (But maybe rare or something).
 * -93.196.233.186 22:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The example from 2006 seems to be the only one from modern times; at least the only one I've been able to find. I think it's simply a mistake in that book rather than a case of a genuine alternative form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple search on books.google for "eines Archives" gives around 230 results. When changing it to results from the 21st century (2001-2100, thus just 2001-2014 ATM) there are 33 results. Of couse: a) Some results might be based on wrong OCRs, but that mostly happens with older books resp. books in fraktur; b) Some modern results might just be quotes. Other non-quote examples from modern times include:
 * books.google.de/books?id=ASnOE5bWrEQC&pg=PA411 (2005): "Der einzelne Beleg eines Archives reicht deshalb für die Identifikation eines Satrapensitzes nicht einmal dann aus, wenn zugleich auf ein Schatzhaus verwiesen wird, da diese Verbindung ohnehin typisch ist."
 * books.google.de/books?id=mZIyYyBqyCcC&pg=PA138 (2008): "Daraus geht hervor, dass die Entscheidung zur Einrichtung eines Archives für das Schriftgut des Verlages und zur Bestandsbearbeitung 1985 zum 40jährigen Jubiläum des Aufbau-Verlages fiel."
 * books.google.de/books?id=FW49AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA75 (2013): "Eine Urkunde kann also sowohl als Teil eines Archives, als auch als Teil eines regionalen Regestenwerkes wie ebenso als Teil einer kritischen Edition dargestellt werden."
 * Thus: "chiefly archaic" seems not to be true too. Maybe rarer (more rare, less common) than "Archivs" might be true. google gives around 1.220 results for "eines Archivs" and around 353 for it in the 21st century. So rarer it is. Furthermore: "Not listed in Duden" (and maybe in some other dictionaries) is true, but is that relevant? -80.133.101.126 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep of course, definitely exists, we're just haggling over archaic/dated/rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, since it is attested, and is even fairly common: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)