Talk:dooblydoo

RFV discussion
Not seeing it with this spelling (I didn't look for others) on Google News, News Archive, Groups, or Books. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See for one. Also if you search dooblydoo on Youtube it brings up a lot of hits. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see [[WT:CFI]]'s section on attestation. Web sites are not considered durably archived, though we do count as durably archived Google's cached copy of Usenet posts. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your criteria says, Clearly widespread use, Usage in a well-known work, Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. This is a clearly widespread term. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, clearly widespread means something like dog (a kind of animal) or one (a number). I don't think this qualifies. If it were widespread (let alone clearly so), don't you think it would have made it into the news at some point? As I noted above, there are no Google News or Google News Archive hits for the term. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's common and people would want to know what it means. I don't see why you don't want to keep it. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The CFI requires an entry to be attested in durably archived media, which this word doesn't appear to be. The "clearly widespread use" clause is basically saying that we don't need to explicitly verify words that are very common in everyday speech, even though it would be trivially easy to do so (and indeed some have been). "dooblydoo" isn't a word I've ever heard not apparently has Msh210 so it clearly isn't in widespread everyday use. We have the attestation requirements so that we only include real words that are verifiably actually used. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having now looked on goolge books, news archive, groups and scholar, the only evidence I can find is for
 * "doobly doo" in |dooblydoo#ffed07cb71de3d4e which is clearly not in the same sense (I don't actually think it means anything there, but that's irrelevant)
 * "dooblydoo" in |dooblydoo#dd4ac438050c8bc4 where it is part of the domain a domain name and thus not used in the sense given in the entry.
 * an invisible hit at |dooblydoo&q=%22doobly+doo%22#search_anchor, so I've no idea whether it is actually present (could be a scanno) but as this work is from 1991 and YouTube wasn't founded until 2005 it clearly wont be the required sense
 * In short, there is no evidence that it meets the CFI, at least not yet. It may do in the future, just like any word. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I suppose it's just a common word for an uncommon thing, which is why the media hasn't found opportunity to use it yet. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lexicógrafo, your citation uses "doobly-doo" and just says "for coining the word doobly-doo" - that doesn't demonstrate meaning, I could put on my blog that I coined the word "la-laa-la-laa" - so? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So it's not a word that everyone's heard of. But that article using the word doobly-doo and not explaining its meaning means that the reader is expected to know what it means, which means it is a widespread term for that particular feature of the internet. No? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 14:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it means someone used it, expecting his readers to know what it means. If I used homeomorphic in my dissertation without defining it (as I did), does that mean it sees widespread use? No. (Heck, then one citation would be sufficient for any word.) We require more than that. See what I wrote above, about dog and one. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you expect them to know what it means, there's got to be a good chance that they will. Otherwise I could just throw a lot of random, obscure words into my writing and no one would have a clue what I was talking about. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. People might use it self-consciously in the hope of being asked to explain it (allowing them to feel superior and part of the "in crowd"), or they might naturally expect people to Google it or to work it out from context. Equinox ◑ 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In a news article? But it's the whole principle that language revolves around. I say something and I expect you to understand and get the message without me having to define every single word for you. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday User:Lexicografía changed dooblydoo into an alternate spelling, moving the main entry to doobly-doo. I've had another look (for both spellings) at google books, google groups, google news, google news archive, Hansard, COCA and BNC. I found only the same three results I found previously, none of which verify the definition given. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Was re-added without cites (just one "mention", no usage). So deleted again. Equinox ◑ 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)