Talk:biophysica

RFV discussion: February–May 2018
I have added the one and only cite I can find. To bring this continuing conflict to light once more, given that this is only found in New Latin and not in the extinct form of the language as it was spoken natively, do we consider this one cite to meet CFI? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the answer is no. The three votes on this topic last year did not have a decisive result, but I think it's clear that there's more support for what we've done in the past (requiring three cites for modern Latin) than for any other approach. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I missed those discussions, but they interest me. Mainly wondering: when does Latin become "modern" for purposes of attestation? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 03:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The provided quote is incomplete ("[...]"), but there should be no doubt that it is a proper Latin sentence and not for example an English sentence with a mentioning of Latin text. If it really is a real Latin text and a Latin usage, it should be attested, as Latin (especially Contemporary Latin) is a LDL. Harrius for example can maybe only be attested through the Harrius Potter (in the English version Harry Potter) books. How about adding to the barely attested terms? The template probably is used less often than it should be... (Several Low German terms, especially regional ones (Category:Regional German Low German), probably are hard to attest and some probably were added based on a dictionary mentioning only. And several translations of water (water) in obscure languages probably were added based on a mentioning and also without adding the source to "a list of materials deemed appropriate" (WT:CFI).) As for "what we've done in the past (requiring three cites for modern Latin)": antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes (cp. Talk:antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes) once passed RFV as a Latin term with a single Middle French usage (which in Latin times would be New Latin and not Mediaeval Latin). This would (now) not even be enough to attest a non-Middle-French LDL term (WT:CFI: "one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements" + "a list of materials deemed appropriate"). -84.161.52.159 07:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They mean votes like Votes/2017-05/Modern Latin as a WDL (which ended with "No consensus").

As for the adjective, the citations at Citations:biophysica aren't proper Latin usages. It's as Latin, as or  is English. Would similar sources be accepted for English or German or any other language? AFAIK no. Would German uses of - be it as a proper word or in the book title "Ego-Shooter Spielkultur" - attest English ? No. Would New High German usages of (Germanic goddess of spring) attested OHG ? No. Would English or German or whatever non-Latin usages of (pseudo-)Latin in Warhammer 40.000 like exterminatus (obliteration of all life on a planet) attest anything for Latin? No. So why should the English usage of a Finnish's organisation name in "[...] endorsement by [...] the Societas Biochemica, Biophysica et Microbiologica Fenniae [...]" attest anything for Latin? By www.biobio.org the name would even be misspelled, as the page gives it as "Societas biochemica, biophysica et microbiologica Fenniae" (at the bottom). Now it could be argued that the organisation's name attest the Latin. Is the name itself a Latin usage? Are "Magnavox" (US-American company), "Natus Vincere" (Ukrainian organisation) Latin usages, or is "Era Vulgaris" (en:w:Era Vulgaris (album)) a Latin or English usage, or are "Galaxy Fräulein Yuna"/"Galaxy Fraulein Yuna", "Bravo Screenfun", "Oldtimer Praxis" (both are German magazines), "Open Car" (means Cabrio; here as part of "Open Car Selection" on the cover of some Japanese toys), "Babyfoot France" ( = table football; here), "Webside Market" (here) English usages, or are "Girls und Panzer", "Akatsuki Blitzkampf", "Übel Blatt", "Heldensagen Vom Kosmosinsel" German usages? The single citation in biophysicus could attest the term, but even that citation is dubious. -84.161.20.186 06:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added several more citations of this string, but it is possible that in some or all of the citations, the term is adjectival (in which case, change the POS header). - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed as a noun; passed as an adjective. Citations (saved from several attempts at deletion and) moved to citations page. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFV-failed for the noun is questionable. As of WT:LDL&WT:WDL Latin is LDL for which one citation is enough. As for pratise in the past, sometimes 1 cite was enough (example was given above). Why not pass + Template:LDL? (Maybe cp. also WT:CFI regaring the template.)