Talk:JavaScripted

RFV
~15K google hits.

Any noun can get that many hits if appended with "-ed".--Dixtosa (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV passed. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added three quotations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I created this entry, and the word obviously exists, but I am now wondering about the definition (never mind the fact that the RFV was closed in about 24 hours!). The citations seem to mean "accessed via JS" (2005), "implemented in JS" (2011), and "implemented by means of JS" (2012: the video captions). I don't want to see us create a huge number of senses but, to be fair, the word is used in a pretty variable way. Equinox ◑ 04:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that such a new word has many definitions is one of the hallmarks of what I would call" immature terms". Those authors that MrGranger cited most probably derived it themselves (knowing how -ed suffix works), rather consciously used it (knowing that this term exists). Looking at Google results I see poor results. Yes, not only the number of hits is problematic, but also that the results are not convincing (note that the first result is Wiktionary).
 * Maybe I have a controversial opinion about CFI.
 * Whatever.
 * BTW, three sources is like a quick and sloppy way of avoiding even longer RFV?.--Dixtosa (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the wrangling is over the definition not whether the word exists or not, RFV passed sounds right. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Google hits means nothing per CFI, and the phrase "immature terms" appears on Wiktionary only in your post. The policy that we have agreed upon has been followed here, so there's not need to waste time on a longer RFV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. The top of the page says: '... after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge', in part about closing. I proposed in BP to remove the limitation that a week has to pass between "cited" and "closing", but one user expressed concern. See Beer_parlour/2015/January. Of course, I am perfectly happy with the above closure; waiting a week between "cited" and "closed" seems an overkill. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. For some reason, I thought the closure has to be a week after discussion ends if we wind up deleting, but closure can be immediate if there are cites. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)