Talk:fellar

RFV
Eye dialect for fellow:. Plausible but I never heard of it. Apparently used in Forty Years a Gambler on the Mississippi @ Gutenberg. Not in any OneLook ref except Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've read that spelling personally. But fella seems more usual. Actarus (Prince d&#39;Euphor) 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to have plenty of instances on Google Books.--Prosfilaes 11:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really doubt that it is attestable. But we have a responsibility to include attestation for English headwords and senses not supported by other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An attestation like this one? By the way, there is the variant feller: http://www.ncangler.com/forums/threads/5609-Hello-fellers!. --Actarus (Prince d&#39;Euphor) 13:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't accept web-only attestations, except from Usenet, which is more clearly durably archived and beyond the possibility of deletion by an author's request. Whatever is attested (per WT:ATTEST) should be included here. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is no such rule about web-only attestations. And any web page can be durably archived by our software (and the link displayed with an additional small "archive" link). Lmaltier 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This term is plentifully attestable in . I propose this nomination is withdrawn.
 * Re: "we have a responsibility to include attestation for English headwords and senses not supported by other dictionaries": There is nothing of the sort in CFI; CFI does not rely on other dictionaries in any way. As long as a term is obviously attested, I see no urgent need to actually include attesting citations into Wiktionary. If the nominator DCDuring sees such a need, let him enter the citations himself instead of passing the burden of adding attesting citations of a clearly attested term to other people. Such citations are of course nice to have in Wiktionary, but should be nowhere necessary for continued inclusion of the term. --Dan Polansky 10:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Polansky here.--Prosfilaes 10:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who said responsibility is a matter of rules? CFI and other policy pages don't cover a lot of things. Nor do I think we should create rules concerning matters like a sense of responsibility. We clearly don't seem to have much pressure to cite terms. I haven't noticed very many of our contributors exerting effort to provide attestation for terms in any language. Is this not a fun activity? Is it too much like work? Moreover, we seem to be doing our best to discourage use of Wiktionary by native English speakers from among whom we might find those with the ability and will to provide attestation.
 * I find Polansky's statement that citations are merely "nice to have in Wiktionary" to betray a lack of understanding of the scope of a language like English, the meaning, register, and usage geography of whose words is far beyond the knowledge of any person. Facts about usage are needed to provide sound knowledge. If Polansky and others would like to dispense with attestation to support our entries they can take control of English Wiktionary and do so.
 * Is fellar dated? What pronunciations does it reflect? Does it have other meanings? DCDuring TALK 12:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, RFV is a request for deletion unless attested in a month. A missing "dated" tag is a poor reason for deleting an entry unless citations are provided in the entry. If you wanted to request attestation of some aspects of the current entry in such a way that it would not lead to deletion, you could have used Tea room. I do not say that, in each and every case, citations are merely nice to have in Wiktionary; citations are essential with entries for which there exists a reasonable doubt that they are attested. With "fellar", no such reasonable doubt exists thanks to, so "fellar" should not have been sent to RFV in the first place. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those questions are necessarily answerable by three arbitrary citations. Three random dates don't necessarily tell you whether it's dated or not. What pronunciations it reflects may be hopeless with an entire corpus. And whether or not it has other meanings is not helped in the least by citations. I've several times cited a word and found several other meanings that may or may not have been citable that I ignored.--Prosfilaes 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cited. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pahyesst (, passed). - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)