Talk:acanthpelyx

RFV discussion: December 2022–February 2023
might have a better shot at attestability. 70.172.194.25 04:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like a typo to me ... the pronunciation has been listed with /o/ since the page's creation in 2013. — Soap — 13:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Even is elusive. I find a couple of mentions, and then, oddly enough, a use in an otolaryngology textbook, which cannot possibly be referring to the pelvis. I'm inclined to delete the entry outright rather than move it. This, that and the other (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If acanthopelyx exists the second part comes from πέλυξ "bowl, axe", which is also used in the word pelycosaur. I think this should pass, ... I found a few mentions in non-dictionaries, but should dictionaries not count?  I think it's just become more rare these days as medicine has moved towards Latin and away from Greek. — Soap — 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have always been clear on this project that we are looking for uses, not mentions. Dictionaries generally don't count purely because they normally mention the term without using it. Can you supply examples of cites that you believe should count towards attestation of this word? This, that and the other (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * is the only one that I can see. There are other hits that are not dictionaries and are unlikely to be copies of the text I posted, but this just highlights again how frustrating I find it when Google Books says it's found a hit but, when I go to look in the book text, it's not there. Whether that's due to the pages that contain the term being unavailable for viewing or due to Google Books just being overly accommodating of errors (e.g. including the modern term acanthopelvis) I dont know, but whether there's three uses or not, it's not going to be citable, so if we can't use the old medical dictionaries then I withdraw my objection to having this deleted. That said, I didnt think the use/mention thing applied to dictionaries, since we have a lot of entries that are just taken directly from Webster 1913. I suppose that Webster is an exception because they're known to be held in high regard, whereas medical dictionaries might just be scrounging up every term they can find anywhere? — Soap — 14:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The one at the link is slightly problematic since it's part of a Latin-style disease name ("acanthopelyx or pelvis spinosa", italicised) and is also technically a mention (it says someone called the disease that). I'm not sure on Google Books. Generally you should ignore any hit where it's not in the text given in the results page, but I've had a few cases where that text doesn't appear anywhere on the page it links, maybe because the page scans and the OCR text aren't synced properly. Specifying "intext:" at the start can help to cut out the useless results, though I've had mixed results. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Failed, no hits other then the linked mention. Ioaxxere (talk)