Talk:eddresses

moved here from Requests for verification

eddresses
Non-standard, at best. -- [ Connel MacKenzie] 20:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, do you want separate citations for the plural? —Muke Tever 06:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nah. But I am uncomfortable when you cite a slang dictionary (below) for the singular.  Are all citations (here on rfv) assumed to be good enough if we can click through and see them, or do we have a round of arguing the scholarly merit of the citations?  Just asking, how you expect this to proceed, really.  -- [ Connel MacKenzie] 15:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the OED is known to cite other dictionaries (though in most cases for early cites) and we don't seem to have anything in particular against slang (at least, as long as it can make it into print), but I added another quotation to eddress for good measure (and it's in the plural, even). I don't think that arguing 'scholarly merit' really would mean much here—I think basically just a chance to check that the quotations exist or are otherwise verifiable, and that they actually support to the meaning in question (on this account I had to edit the definition of eddress because the new quote referred to a different kind of address [in this case IP addresses...]).   Er.  —Muke Tever 07:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do think the abstract "scholarly merit" has a lot of bearing here on Wiktionary. That is the sort of difference of opinion that this page seeks to address in a neutral manner, right?  Perhaps this is a bad example for this; I'm sure the topic will resurface again.  Just to note though, I'm not talking about the scholarly merit of the term itself, only the source texts being referenced as evidence that the term's use is neither incoherent ramblings nor utter nonsense.  If we want to improve Wiktionary's image in the public's eyes, I think we should aim high for disputed terms.  (This should move to the talk page or BP.)  -- [ Connel MacKenzie] 15:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)