Talk:daughterin'

RFD discussion: March–April 2014
This and keepin', kickin', interestin', needin', accordin', changin', draggin', burnin', expectin', standin', feelin', showin', screamin', dancin', sendin', growin', motherin', foolin', workin', waitin', thinkin'. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some tough logic: These entries were added by a user who was blocked for adding them. So, either it was ok to add the entries and he should be unblocked, or it was not ok to add the entires and the entries should be speedily deleted. --WikiTiki89 05:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep these if they are attested. We have long kept -in' entries. The user who added these seems (based on the block summary) to have been blocked for using multiple accounts, not for adding these particular entries. - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, the user is WF, and SemperBlotto generally only blocks WF when he uses more than one account at a time, or when he starts adding garbage- so WikiTiki89 may not be far from the truth. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect he was using multiple accounts, because most of these are trivially citeable, and follow our usual format for such entries. Daughterin’ might should be RFVed, though. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep any that are attested. (That is keep all, and anyone can RFV any that, after a search, he suspects is unattested.) See also the old BP discussion -sche linked to above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this form, but daughtering is clearly attested, and I have created an entry for it. bd2412 T 16:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment. This is an RfV matter, not a RfD matter. bd2412 T 19:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete daughterin' (keep the rest) — it was suggested by my script in error. It was suggested based on a mangled scanno of daughter-in-law (I automatically added an apostrophe to -in words). The Google ngram data where it originated does not contain the word daughterin':. My apologies. The rest of the "eye dialect" terms can probably be attested though. If this RFD was only for daughterin'  I think a result in favour of deletion would have been more clear. Pengo (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no RfD rationale in our current rules or practice for deleting these. None, some or all may turn out not to survive RfV if challenged there. Even daughterin may be be found in some source other than the Google n-gram corpus, which, I think, is smaller than the entire Books corpus. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Someone should probably link this discussion to the RfV for daughterin'. (I honestly will be impressed by any citations found). Pengo (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect all "-in'" forms to forms with -ing. We need a CFI rule for "-in'", similar to repetitive "hahahahaha"->hahaha, etc., see Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. I don't think regional spellings, which may have different pronunciations, are comparable to mere repetition. bd2412 T 22:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The similarity is in endless possibilities of -in'/-in or -en'/-en ending for every or almost every English -ing ending. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How is that different from the endless possibilities of -ing endings for verbs? A variation would need to be attested to be included, and either its entry would indicate the difference in pronunciation, or the base page (e.g. "fixing"), would need a line indicating the alternate spelling and pronunciation. bd2412 T 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Kept, since the verifiability question has been turned over to RfD. bd2412 T 21:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2014
A set of -in' terms were recently sent to RFD, where sentiment was to move any doubtful ones to RFV. This is the only one which seems doubtful to me (the rest all seem to be citable, most trivially so). - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Should be deleted. It's a mistake from my google ngram data. It's come from an ngram of "daughter-in" [law]. Pengo (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done a reasonably thorough a Google books search and found nothing. Specifically, I searched for instances of "daughterin'", "motherin' and daughterin'", "fatherin' and daughterin'", "daughterin' for", "daughterin' by", "daughterin' with", and "daughterin' of", and found absolutely nothing for any combination that was not a scanno for some variation of "daughter in" or "daughter-in". bd2412 T 00:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also skeptical, but someone may come up with some search approach that finds something before the later of May 8 or when someone decides to close this after that date. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)