Talk:dwimmer-crafty

RFD discussion: November 2022–January 2024
Just used by Tolkien in that book from the year 2021(?!?!) Flackofnubs (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Leasnam (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Leasnam This seems rather abrupt, no RFV? No waiting a few days for any discussion about whether this should be kept as a hapax legomenon? - TheDaveRoss  16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Restored. Leasnam (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, WT:CFI implies that we don't include hapax legomena for WDLs, even if the hapax is from a notable work. This is written at the top of Category:Hapax legomena by language, and is confirmed by the fact that there is no English subcategory. 98.170.164.88 20:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The category may be empty, but we assuredly have some. The idea that we ought to include a word which appears in three My Little Pony fanfics which will never be read by anyone, but we ought to exclude words which are intentionally included in the most-read books in the language may indicate a misalignment of policy. There is a pretty good chance someone may encounter and be curious what it means. Policy can be wrong, and when it is we should keep the words it would exclude, or exclude the words it would keep. And perhaps fix the policy. -  TheDaveRoss  21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Put it in a nonce-word appendix then. (It needs a lot more love.) CitationsFreak (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be at WT:RFVE. AG202 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose the first order of business is to RFV, although yes, if it's only used by one author it'll be deleted. We used to allow words used in only one work, but voted to remove that in 2014, see diff, voted linked in edit summary, so English terms do actually have to have been used (three whole times) and not just coined by a celebrity. If there are citations, we may nonetheless return here to RFD, because the current definition is basically "crafty in the art of dwimmer", and this works for the one cite given, and is arguably SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * SOP is a more compelling argument to me. - TheDaveRoss  14:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * lol classic Leasnamism. Equinox ◑ 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * <> lol classic Equinoxism. Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You've already admitted in the past that you added silly made-up Anglish words. I don't challenge them to hurt you, but to improve the quality of the dictionary. If that is "Equinoxism" then I am proud to represent it. Equinox ◑ 06:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have ? With those exact words? SHOW me where I've admitted to adding "silly made-up 'Anglish' words" ? Leasnam (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

* RFD failed. It should really have been taken to RFV, but it would fail that too P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking close by inexperienced editor. The discussion should continue to a clearer conclusion. bd2412 T 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * RFD failed again. It should really have been taken to RFV, but it would fail that too Jewle V (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)