Talk:Denmark-Norawa

RFV discussion: July–August 2016
Scots by Philmonte101. Can't find attesting quotations. . --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fine. But still...this would technically be completely correct Scots, since it's + . It's a shame it must be deleted...

(psssst... Isn't there some way we can keep translations like this that are technically correct but not attested?) Philmonte101 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If nobody uses them in the actual language, they are not "technically correct". You could equally argue that budgerigarsit could be a technically correct verb for looking after somebody's budgerigar (compare babysit, petsit), but nobody has ever said it and it would be silly and misleading to have an entry. Equinox ◑ 00:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then delete. I don't see why this should be kept, it has close to no usage in archived sources, if not even any. Honestly, why is it even on scowikipedia if the word itself isn't attested in that language? Philmonte101 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You have to remember that other projects (even other-language Wiktionaries) don't necessarily have the same rules that we do for deciding what is a word. For our purposes, WT:CFI takes priority over anything else. Equinox ◑ 01:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone I remember said in some discussion once about an unattested word that Wikipedias should have some kind of attestation requirements for words used in articles. I totally agree. Although, of course, this isn't something that should be brought up here, but definitely something they should consider, since it is one thing that confuses Wiktionary editors quite a lot around here, and not just me. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. Wait can I do that if I'm not an admin? I mean this would be failed anyway, so...
 * I've reverted your archiving of this discussion. Please read the top of this page and do not close or archive discussions prematurely. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just noticed that you are the entry's creator. In that case I think it's fine for you to close the discussion early, as created in error, but we still shouldn't archive it immediately, just in case someone objects. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Put up a deletion tag. in other words, RFV failed, created in error. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)