Talk:disableds

RFV discussion: December 2015
Really? Donnanz (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete.  I was going to say that this could be a legitimate plural only if you can refer to "a disabled" as a noun.  Which, according to the entry, you can.  It seems rather callous to me, unlike the collective plural "the disabled", meaning "persons with a (usually severe) disability".  Googled "some disableds", "several disableds", "few disableds", "these disableds", and "those disableds", and got no hits.  It seems as though, even if some people might refer to a disabled person as "a disabled", nobody considers "those disableds" fit for use yet.  I suppose we should be pleased that decency has prevented "disableds" from entering the lexicon so far.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any other words we should delete based purely on your opinion? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to persuade people to agree with you? P Aculeius (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, are there? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to stop bullying other users just because it makes you feel big. You routinely mischaracterize what other people say, and ignore the underlying question being discussed.  Posting an opinion about a word or sense isn't an invitation for personal attacks, so stop treating it like one and get over yourself!  P Aculeius (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree, the question being discussed is whether you think entries should be deleted purely based on your opinion, which is what you've said about this entry. I'm asking if that applies to any other entries and so far you've refused to answer. Bandying about words like 'bullying' to avoi answering the question is cowardly and wrong. Maybe the person who created disableds feels bullies because you're trying to get the entry deleted not based on its merits, but based on purely 100% your opinion. Don't avoid the question twice in a row and then accuse me of ignoring the underlying question. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring the question because it proceeds from a false premise. You're the one who insists that I'm voting based on my feelings, rather than facts.  I stated the facts as I found them when posting my opinion on whether the sense should stand or fail.  You're unwilling to acknowledge that, and have repeatedly demanded I tell you what you want to hear.  What for?  So you'll feel like you beat me.  That's what makes you a bully.  If you were concerned with the underlying question, or my response to it, you'd have noticed that I struck the "delete" vote days ago and said that I was satisfied with the attestation subsequently provided.  If you gave a peppercorn about my stance on the issue or the ultimate outcome, you'd call off the pit bulls and be satisfied with where the debate arrived.  But you're still on the attack.  So do me and all of Wiktionary a favour, and go jump in a lake.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P Aculeius, let me remind you that this is a RFV where we seldom vote delete. The purpose of RFV is to find whether there are attesting quotations showing the nominated term meets WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added three book/magazine citations. Equinox ◑ 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As the you're the creator of this entry and thousands of other dubious plurals I expect you to defend it. But I don't think it's a realistic plural, and should be marked as such if it survives (which shouldn't happen). And P Aculeius is right to mention "a disabled"; I looked at that too and it raised my eyebrows. Donnanz (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Dubious" how? It passes WT:CFI. You not liking something doesn't invalidate it. Equinox ◑ 14:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa Donnanz you used to be an inclusionist, now you want things delete even when they demonstrably exist? WT:Criteria for inclusion not seeing "delete if P Aculeius doesn't like it either". Why is it all about you two and not about the evidence? Oh and I assume is nonstandard as a singular and should be tagged accordingly. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an inclusionist when it comes to realistic terms and plurals. Dubious plurals are best ignored and left unentered, but I doubt if my advice will be followed. Donnanz (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the question is, why do you think it's your decision? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making a decision, but I have the right to query an entry like every other user. Donnanz (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But you're advocating that we bypass WT:CFI for the simple reason that you want us to. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cited in the mainspace. (Just a little boldface for bureaucratic convenience.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "I expect you to defend it": Once attesting quotations have been provided (as they were), there is nothing more to do in this RFV. In RFV, the form is "defended" by having attesting quotations provided, as has happened. If you want to vote the form out of Wiktionary, you can try your luck in RFD, where voting is usual. Voting is not usual in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like a perfectly appropriate response when the word doesn't appear to have any usage. Now there are three citations, which satisfies me that people do occasionally say it, but I don't think the second one is a good example, because it's part of the phrase "occupationally disabled", and doesn't stand on its own.  I'm perfectly happy to let the entry stand while someone looks for a better example, since it seems to be an actual word, even if a rather rude way of referring to disabled people.  But as I said, I couldn't come up with any examples when I looked this morning, and on that basis, a vote to delete it outright seemed appropriate.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. It may be "attestable", but it's still very dodgy English. Donnanz (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it should probably be labeled "rare", "nonstandard", "proscribed" or something like that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that; use whichever is the most scathing label. Donnanz (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I noticed that one of the citations is explicitly South African, and to my ear, that sounds right for the dialectical differences in South African English (We have a lot of South African immigrants here, so I hear that sort of phrasing fairly often. When I "hear" it in my mind in a South African accent, it does not even sound rude). Kiwima (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful for other users if they knew what part of the world you're in. Is it NZ? Donnanz (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an American ex-pat living in New Zealand. I'm not sure why that's helpful, but it's no secret. Kiwima (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When talking about wandering South Africans... Your user page is blank. I'm an Invercargillite. Donnanz (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But again, why "dodgy"? Why "dubious"? Just prescriptively, because you don't like it? Many of the words you yourself use (like "dodgy" itself) were presumably seen as unacceptable slang at some point in the past. Equinox ◑ 16:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever closes this RFV has the pleasure of being the judge. Donnanz (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added another citation, in case the one about "occupationally disabled" is not deemed sufficient. When I looked, I found plenty more examples. We may not like the usage, we may find it offensive, but it is definitely attestable. As has been said before, our policy is descriptive, not proscriptive, so if people use it, it deserves an entry. Kiwima (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Delete" is not an appropriate response in RFV. We don't need any editor's "delete" to tell us whether there are or are not attesting quotations. To the contrary, the RFV process is there to help discover such quotations if any, and thus, to discover evidence if it exists. RFV is a request for evidence, not a request for votes. If you don't believe me, please check revision histories of this page to see how we do things in RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (all words in all languages) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The word was referred here because the referring editor didn't think it had any attestable usage. I searched and couldn't find any.  If a word appears to have been invented by a contributor with no evidence of usage elsewhere, then it should be deleted.  No evidence of usage emerged until after a couple of searches had come up empty.  So I don't see why I should be apologizing to everyone for responding based on the results of those searches.  If this is supposed to be a search for evidence, then discuss the evidence, instead of constantly trying to score points by saying "you did this wrong!  You don't understand this process!  What's wrong with you?!  You don't belong on this project, you nincompoop!!!"  I'm really sick of discussions about whether words exist or have demonstrable usage turning into endless personal attacks.  Editors who can't get over trying to prove that they're better or more worthy than others ought to remove themselves from Wiktionary, or else we should just petition Wikimedia to shut this whole thing down.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mistaking RfV for RfD and voting Delete is somewhat annoying to veteran contributors, because RfV is a relatively fact-based process with only some quibbling about the import of italics and quotation marks. The fact-based nature of the process means that we usually trust a single closer to assess whether the citations are sufficient or to accept "widespread usage" as a sufficient argument. I think votes remind folks of the more contentious, often fact-free, RfD discussions. Also, the most obvious search for the term would have been for "the disableds", which yields a raw count of 139 at Google Books, though only about 20 with preview available, most of which are for the disabled's, but at least three of which seem to be valid. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. A few comparable (and attestable) words formed with past tense plus plural: insureds, unmarrieds, unbeatens. Equinox ◑ 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Closed as cited: If anyone believe the entry fails CFI, it may still be nominated for deletion and the sidebars may be continued there. Pur ple back pack 89  01:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)