Talk:Cijin

RFV discussion: April–May 2021
It may seem absurd to bring a word which has two meanings that in total have twenty-one quotes/cites (mostly non-durable) here. If you have that feeling about this question, then I sincerely ask you not to participate in this discussion, because this discussion is not for you. In the real world of the Wiki Projects, Tongyong Pinyin-derived words are in danger of deletion at any time- note my recent prolonged discussion on admin board at Wikimedia Commons. I can provide other examples if needed. This is because Hanyu Pinyin is the preferred system of romanization for Mandarin Chinese, and you and me are essentially required to forget that anything that exists or existed that is not Hanyu Pinyin-derived. The word 'Cijin' is forbidden knowledge, and so it's a stick in the eye to the Hanyu Pinyin-only crowd that the Cijin page even exists at all. What I'm looking for here is not just confirmation that I have added three cites for each sense that prove the word, but that there are at least three cites that are actually in "permanently recorded media"/that are "durably archived". Did I really meet that requirement? I mean, for real, did I really meet it? That criteria is very important because it is probably the only way that I can think of that a rogue admin in twenty or thirty years time will try to find some kind of loophole or create some policy change to break and then delete the Cijin entry. It is hard to know what 'durably archived' really means, even after reading the materials, and I want to really get deep into that criteria and make this page delete-proof from now until there is no such thing as Wiktionary. (Note that there was a 10-year edit war on the Wikipedia page for this location concerning contention between 'Cijin' and 'Qijin'.) So my question: have I really added at least three durably archived cites/quotes for Cijin? And do they really satisfy use/mention? The other cites/quotes are for context, because if you don't have those other website quotes, they will say "oh, you only have three or four cites? not much is it?--this word should be ignored from lack of use" blah blah. They provide context. Thanks for any help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "rogue admin in twenty or thirty years time"- all policies can change. Wiktionary could be deleted. If this makes you uncomfortable you should be creating physical books, not websites. DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, all policies change. It used to be that one citations would do if it were in an important work. At this point, many of us would like to change the "permanently archived" rule to allow for the fact that online media is eclipsing print media. The fact that Wiktionary is a website, not a physical book is a reflection of this. Kiwima (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have looked over the cites, and there are enough permanently archived citations in the mix to pass, but I think they should be moved to the citations page and organized into durably and non-durably archived to make it less of a confusing mess. Kiwima (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RFV-kept. You have got to stop wasting our time with your persecution complex. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I answered in kind to what was said in the comment above this one, I would be blocked immediately. Quotation of specific rules about what is or is not allowed on this board are helpful, productive and interesting comments, but humiliation based on amateur psychoanalysis is totally irrelevant and uninteresting and always will be, no matter who says it. But to the point, no time was wasted here my friends. If you look at what went on at Wikimedia Commons (what I linked above), you're going to see people trying to come up with any possible justification or delay tactic to ignore the fact that Tongyong Pinyin exists. Here's another example of a wild, flailing attempt to find some justification to delete Tongyong Pinyin stuff: (this was part of a series of similar edits). Just look at the history of  too. No no- not a persecution complex, just persecution, plain and simple. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the ideal world, yeah sure, I'd like to RFV the Siōng-jiâu page or other similar pages. But this is what I would get from it- more humiliation. If you want to RFV anything, feel free, but I'm not participating in that. I can do a lot (without coming to this board) to prevent societal amnesia of non-Hanyu Pinyin derived words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)