Talk:encolden

RFV discussion
Touted as exemplary of a certain concept on contributor's talk page. Is this "obsolete, British" or just absurd? --Connel MacKenzie 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OED has it listed under en- with no definition. SemperBlotto 10:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This now has three citations. (Wow! With one day to spare…) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How is "[QUOTATION UNAVAILABLE]" a citation? Especially since the article is about verbs in a linguistics journal, so it is almost certainly a secondary source mentioning the word, not using it. With the month over, I'd mark this as RfV failed if that's the best that can be found. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you raised your objection ten days after the one week allowed for disputes about the verification itself to arise, I’m sure you’ll grant me the largesse of allowing me some more time to find the requisite third citation. I imagine I’ll find one in the next few days. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, as “English Studies” is “A Journal of English Language and Literature”, encolden meets the CFI under criterion 3 (“[a]ppearance in a refereed academic journal”). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I’ve just added a fourth citation (from a work published in 1840). Therefore, encolden satisfies both the third and the fourth criteria for inclusion. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having at last accessed the article from “English Studies”, I’ve added the quotation thence to the 2001 citation which formerly stated “[QUOTATION UNAVAILABLE]”. Would someone please mark this word RFVpassed already? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone disagrees, I will mark this RFVpassed. sewnmouthsecret 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)