Talk:esquivalience

RfV discussion — failed
First archived in this revision:

User:Connel MacKenzie added this entry, possibly due to the fact it's a made up word, and not in common usage. As [|The New York Times] and dictioary.com verify (as well as Wikipedia), it is a word added to the New Oxford American Dictionary to prevent the dictionary being copied. I suggest the word is included because it's an interesting word, and inclusion will help to prevent the word being used incorrectly. —h2g2bob 13:24 26/10/05


 * This is one reason why we don't rely on other secondary sources. The question, as always, is whether anyone actually uses the term in that sense (or any other).
 * Google print: Nada
 * Google groups: Two hits, both saying it's a fake word.
 * Google web: 641 hits. From the first few pages, almost all seem to be "it's a fake word". One tries to use it ("A dubious plot of esquivalience intent. [sic]") and then goes on to explain it's a fake word. Under the "would someone run across it and want to know what it means", this is dubious at best (hmm ... last I looked there was an example for "jib" in CFI, which probably should be cited as not counting). If anyone wants to go through the rest of these and try to find legitimate cites, they're welcome to it.
 * The interesting question is, supposing that it's only mentioned and not used, do we still give it an entry? It seems useful to note, in the same way we note common mispellings and such. Maybe we should just reformat the article to be a note without a definition? -dmh 19:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See also dord. &mdash; Hippietrail 02:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, the article is (probably) wrong. It says that "dord" means a mistake made by Websters, but I doubt anyone uses it to mean that. I'd move for reformatting entries like this. Not sure exactly how, though. -dmh 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * These entries seem to have entries in wikipedia, which is where they should be I suppose. We could have a brief note saying it's not a real word, and have a link to wikipedia for those who are interested.
 * It might be worth noting that it looks like any time these words are actually used, it is explained what it means in the text. In that sense, a dictionary definition is not really needed, but it seems a shame if we lost these words. - h2g2bob

This word started as a fictitious entry in the OED to catch other dictionaries plagiarizing. The definition given was "the willful neglect of ones official responsibilities". Even though OED made it up, this author personally believes 1) it is a good word 2) it does meet inclusion criteria as there is at least one edition of the OED that includes it.
 * Calling yourself an author on a wiki talk page just looks silly. Also: 1) It doesn't matter if it's a good word (how do you decide, anyway?) 2) Our inclusion criteria are based on usage, not on authoritative sources- not even the OED (see WT:CFI). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2023–January 2024
Rfv-sense of the two just-added senses; there aren't many cites of this word (originally made up as a copyright trap by Oxford) and I don't see evidence that we can support three senses. - -sche (discuss) 23:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * EsquivalienceDefinitionNewOxfordDictionary.jpg Esquivalience Definition
 * Trying to make fetch happening, huh? Jberkel 19:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * RFV failed – Jberkel 18:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)