Talk:Fuppes

RFV discussion: April 2019–December 2021
Looks spurious, also as [https://books.google.com/books?id=SnSlfP6cerwC&pg=PA119&dq=Fuppes Maria Besse, ''Britter Wörterbuch. Moselfränkischer Dialekt am "Tor zum Hochwald"''] has "Fuppes m. .. dummes Zeug, Unsinn ..". Super Teddy 3 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it is spurious. See the following article on the website of (not Die Welt): “Über Fuppes, beömmeln und den Muckefuck”. The tentative etymologies given in the article have nothing in common with the one in our entry, but the sense and regional identification agree.  --Lambiam 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say this one is cited, but we may consider moving Die Welt into the etymology section. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a procedure for contesting a closed rfv, but simply reinstating the tag should not be it. See also . For establishing in the etymology section that this is not simply dialect, this page from the Rhineland Mitmachwörterbuch can be a second reference. (The article is not dated, but this was "word of the month" in May and June 2018.) --Lambiam 09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lambian: Please read the part about "Closing a request", especially this part: "“cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed": It wasn't cited for more than a week, and thus it wasn't closed correctly. Additionaly, one of the three cites wasn't even a usage but only a mentioning which isn't sufficient (WT:CFI), so it wasn't even cited in the first place.
 * @Alexis: Additional mentionings can also be next to the usages. It doesn't count for attestation, but can give further information nontheless.
 * Now it's indeed more or less cited. It could be questioned if Tonight is really durably archived, but well. (en.wp, de.wp, tonight.de sound like it isn't.)
 * Closed, as it appears to have been cited for a long time now. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)