Talk:fluffragette

RFV discussion
"(informal) a woman with pre-feminist views." Equinox ◑ 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is mentioned in what appears to be a refereed academic e-journal. Technically, I think that counts, even though it really, really shouldn't. Here's the context:
 * Obviously, this particular ConFI is broken, but given that it's currently in place … I guess we keep the entry? :-/
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the "use-mention distinction" irrelevant to the academic-journal rule? Might merit a vote. Equinox ◑ 22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI explicitly applies the "conveying meaning" requirement (i.e., use as opposed to mention) only to the three-cites rule. I think it implicitly applies it to the clearly-widespread-use and well-known-work rules, in that it speaks of "use" and "usage". But for journals, it speaks only of "appearance". I don't know quite why that is — it's been that way since before my time — but I had assumed that it was intentional, a way of accepting peer-reviewed content that we can't verify ourselves, as long as it's not from another dictionary that could potentially sue us. ;-)  I may well have assumed wrongly, though. —Ruakh TALK 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, after digging through the history, I find that this edit changed the rule from "Common usage is attested in a reputable academic work" (which is almost identical to the statement in the very first version of WT:CFI ) to "It appears in a refereed academic journal" (which is more or less what we have today). I don't know how much consensus was behind that change — this was well before *cough* a certain editor decided that VOTEs should be required for all future edits — but I would support a vote to change it back. That older version makes much more sense. —Ruakh TALK 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too would support requiring academic journals to use words. (Anyone wondering if there would be interest in a vote, take note.) — Beobach972 04:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversation continued at [[WT:BP]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversation continued at [[WT:BP]]. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted (due to the change to [[Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion]] that resulted from [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-11/Attestation in academic journals]]). —Ruakh TALK 22:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)