Talk:Pollock

Pollock as an alternate spelling for polack
This is chalengeable as it appears to be a neologism rather than an acknowledged sense of the word pollock. Meaning it is not backed-up by any dictionary and/or encyclopedic sources. Pollock --Jazzeur 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification

 * Note: previous discussion at Talk:Polack and User talk:76.66.194.195. —Ruakh TALK 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (Has been questioned by an anon editing [[Polack]].) —Ruakh TALK 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —Ruakh TALK 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense This is chalengeable as it appears to be a neologism rather than an acknowledged sense of the word pollock. Meaning it is not backed-up by any dictionary and/or encyclopedic sources. --Jazzeur 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The words Pollock and pollock are different, as Smith and smith are. The multiple spellings of "Polack" are shown for example in DARE, but we require only that a given sense be supported by 3 quotes from durably archived sources spanning a year. See WT:CFI. If this were a neologism, that does not mean it would be removed. If it meets the attestation standard, it stays. It might be made to have a neologism tag, but the criteria for that are not systematic, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually seems that one could even attest the spelling pollock for the same meaning based on a Google books search for "dumb pollock", but the "See" links at the top of the page should be good enough. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we do delete misspellings, unless they're "common misspellings"; but that seems to be outside the scope of RFV. —Ruakh TALK 13:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we have specific guidelines for deleting one of these? All, including Polack, are in origin eye-dialect of the Polish. They are something like the many spellings of באָבקעס:. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an RFD vote is sufficient. If the community decides it's a misspelling (as Jazzeur seems to think), and that it's not a common one (as I think is pretty clear), then it goes. Personally, I think it might be nice to have some sort of "Alternative spelling, or perhaps misspelling, of ____" template for cases like this, where it's attested, and adequately cited, and it's not necessarily clear whether to consider it a misspelling. —Ruakh TALK 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks again for the cites, DCDuring. Anyone wishing to RFD this as a misspelling, please feel free to do so. —Ruakh TALK 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)