Talk:back wheels

From RFV
Link to the relevant discussion at RFV from page history. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

back wheels

Together with:
 * boys in the basement
 * movaries

They are listed in WS:testicles as terms referring to, you guessed it, testicles. If they fail this RFV, please remove them from WS:testicles; I did not create mainspace entries for them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not entries => no RfV? Do we need separate standards for WS, ie, accepting non-durable sources? DCDuring TALK 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope not, lest our WS pages become Wikimedia's Urban Dictionary. bd2412 T 02:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * These are redlinks: an invitation to contributors to click the links and create the entries. Anything that redlinks to mainspace should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the entry it could become. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Make 'em black or have the link go the citations page. DCDuring TALK 04:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Items present in Wikisaurus pages have to attested in terms WT:ATTEST. If several editors prefer that I create a mainspace entry in order to use RFV to ask for attestation, I will probably end up doing so. In the meantime, I do not see the added value of doing so.
 * For convenience, here are links to the citation pages of the entries: Citations:back wheels, Citations:boys in the basement, Citations:movaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's definitely within the spirit of the page, if not the letter of what Requests for verification/Header says. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to RFV things that are listed in Wikisaurus without creating entries for them. I think it would also be fine to just delete dubious redlinks from Wikisaurus entries without RFVing them unless the deletion proves contentious. - -sche (discuss) 08:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought one of the useful functions of WS was to allow us to include terms that are plausible, not necessarily citable, even SoP. Some of that was certainly discussed in the early days of WS. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was my practice to remove unattested terms from Wikisaurus. I have sent the current three to RFV only to give them a chance; in a different mood I would have shot them on sight. But it cannot harm to confirm this practice in a vote: Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus and attestation. As for sum of parts, I can imagine some such terms in Wikisaurus.--Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * RFV failed: no quotations provided. The three items removed from Wikisaurus:testicles. Note that Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus and attestation has passed, confirming that items in Wikisaurus need to be attested using the criteria of WT:ATTEST. Proposed archiving location: Talk:back wheels, as usual. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)