Talk:filio de puta

RFV discussion: August–October 2016
Who is swearing in Interlingua? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You could have just googled it. This person, in 2003. This annotated transcript. This person in 2009. Do you want me to continue listing Google results? Jan sewi (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Union Mundial pro Interlingua is also swearing in Interlingua. Jan sewi (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's Interlingua. Jan sewi (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Like how many of the Lojban words on Wiktionary are durably archived? That's the official French-Interlingua dictionary on interlingua.com. Jan sewi (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It also seems like Wiktionary's Interlingua Appendix has been linking to this word since May 27th of 2010. Appendix:Interlingua/fi Jan sewi (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I am about to move tomorrow and so I am not well-equipped, either emotionally or in terms of time, for this dispute. If you get rid of the entry, please move it to my user space if you'd be so kind. Jan sewi (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the attestation requirements do not require that you have durably archived sources, only that you point out that the word is clearly in widespread use. For a language with as small a population of speakers as Interlingua, this is the case since I have been able to point out a number of not-durably-archived uses of the word. It's also in the latest official dictionary from the Union Mundial pro Interlingua, which as far as I know is being prepared for a print version but is currently only online. Beyond, that what else exactly are you expecting from a language as not-widely-spoken as Interlingua? Jan sewi (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I should also add that Interlingua is not a normal constructed language, but is extracted from English, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, four of which obviously have this word, and the threshold being three languages. And in acknowledging this I am not conducting original research, because I have already shown you official sources on the language such as the UMI which also acknowledge the existence of this word/phrase in the language. Jan sewi (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think three non-durably-archived uses (one of which is in quotation marks) and a dictionary constitute "clearly widespread use". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's any point in discussing this. Your response is reductionist, both of my argument and of Wiktionary's written policies. Jan sewi (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules as they have been interpreted basically holds "clearly widespread use" to only apply to cases where three durably-archived uses could be found in a heartbeat, but nobody wants to waste their time. If you want special rules for Interlingua, then this is not the place to ask for them. (I'm really skeptical about the idea of adding words because they're in other languages; if that's all you need, the fact they're in other languages is enough.) Interlingua is included on Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages (section 8), so unlike, say, Cherokee, it does need three proper cites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * People only really use the 'clear widespread use' argument for words that are incredibly rare, or else they'd just cite them and be done with it. No there's not a lot of point of discussing it at least in the fashion you have been doing it, because all the talking in the world on a talk page won't make citations magically appear. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)