Talk:cupiosexual

RFV discussion: March–July 2015
As-yet-impossible-to-attest Tumblrism. Bringing it here for the benefit of the doubt. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like tosh. Also, adjective sense is defined as if it were a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please speedily delete. We are ultimately harming kids by supporting this Tumblr rubbish. Equinox ◑ 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm to including Tumblr neologisms. So long as they're attestable, of course. In fact I think we ought to make more of an effort to include emerging slang and neologisms. Keeping up with linguistic developments increases the utility of the wiki. That said, this doesn't seem citable, and likely never will be. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah. To an extent I agree, and I don't want to sound as though I'm saying "exclude it because it's new": I add plenty of "new" words. However, there is some kind of fad epidemic on Tumblr of creating "-romantic" and "-sexual" orientations that have little meaning and zero usage, and I think we need to take care to distinguish such things from legitimate neologisms that people are using in real life (like "selfie" and "tweetstorm"). Equinox ◑ 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

cupiosexuality
See above. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Making one of my periodic check-ups on the citabiltiy of RFV-failed terms, I found two citations (Citations:cupiosexual), plus one book hit that seems like just a mention. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring the entry on the basis of all the cites at Citations:cupiosexual. It seems to have caught on. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Laughing hard. Thanks. Noun plural too? Equinox ◑ 03:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)