Talk:Rustacean

I believe this term does not need a Wiktionary entry. It's a made-up, colloquial term with a very narrow audience and no real etymology. Basically spam in this place.

I see it more fit for a more informal context, such as the Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rustacean

AntonioAKAJman (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please use WT:RFVE if you feel so inclined. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 07:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's absurd to call it spam. Spam is irrelevant advertising material. This is a real word I added in good faith, whether you like it or not. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize if the choice of words made you uncomfortable. I don't question the good faith but I still stand by my point of this entry not being relevant to a dictionary. --AntonioAKAJman (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September–October 2020
I believe this term does not need an entry here. It's a made-up, informal term known within a narrow audience (of software developers) and no real etymology. After a cursory check I think it does not meet any of the inclusion criteria. --AntonioAKAJman (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * All words were "made up" at some stage. We have Mactard, Linuxer, Pythonista. Anyway, three citations now added, so the RFV is fulfilled. Equinox ◑ 20:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The citations provided are from "users" of the term, not from an actual "official source" of the etymology (if any can be ever identified). My understanding is that the RFV is fullfilled when a solid Attestation is provided. On the other hand I see issues related to colloquial, sarcastic or ironic usage. Also, the other examples mentioned suffer, in my opinion, of the same issue as this term and are not a strong argument in favor.


 * Finally, I think "Rust" can be loosely considered a brand, with its own trademark. Sometimes brands enter the common language (example "to hoover", "to google", ...) but only after a much longer timespan of effective and real usage by a diverse range of people, not only by a small group advertising it.


 * For all these reasons I believe the term has its own dignity and should exist, but - again - in other contexts than this one.
 * --AntonioAKAJman (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You do not understand our policies. Being based on a brand does not exclude a word from Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 05:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe I still fail to see adequate counterpoints to my observations (based from and linked to Wiktionary policies) --AntonioAKAJman (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy your arguments. Equinox cited this using valid sources. It is RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)