Talk:gobbledegooks

RFD
Really? A mass noun according to Oxford, and I've never heard the plural form used. Donnanz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't this an RfV matter? This passes CFI. Pur ple back pack 89   14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find a fair number of both spellings on b.g.c; we may be missing some countable senses of gobbledygook, such as "an instance or example of gobbledygook" (e.g. "Read the five gobbledegooks below") and "whatchamacallit, thingamajig" (e.g. "We will survey, explore, consider, collaborate, have criteria and all of these gobbledygooks, but if we just hammer enough, it will get done."). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They may pass CFI because they're single words.
 * Dredging up obscure references in an effort to prove that that august publication the Oxford Dictionary is wrong seems a bit futile to me. In comparison to Oxford we're a bunch of amateurs. Saying that the plural of tooth is tooths (it exists as a verb form) is also wrong. Nobody seems to contest that.
 * I am tempted to orphan these two entries. Donnanz (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Large chunks of the OED have been untouched since they first appeared in the NED/OED1, sometimes a hundred years ago. They certainly aren't nearly as up-to-date in some areas as we are. If they're missing a few marginal definitions, what dictionary isn't?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't use OED, only the Oxford Dictionary of English, both printed and online.
 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gobbledygook. Donnanz (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The entry in the big OED is from 1972, and has cites with both spellings. It mentions neither "mass noun" nor plurals.
 * Nearly all mass nouns are occasionally used in the plural. Whether or not this is "correct usage" is a matter of opinion.  Usage by established writers would be a good guide, but the plurals are certainly rare (barely reaching CFI), and I'd be inclined to agree that they are also "non-standard".   D b f  i  r  s   18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep both. If they are rare or nonstandard then tag them as such, but there is no reason to delete attested words. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Usage is definitely NOT recommended. Donnanz (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Books shows that Lyndon B. Johnson and playwright Gina Barnett used it, as well as a linguist writing for The Water of light: a miscellany in honor of Brewster Ghiselin. It's not at all like tooths being used instead of teeth; there seems to be a decent amount of respectable usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are these sources all American? That might explain it. Donnanz (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to accept that we do cover international English, not just British English; I can tell you despise US English from your user page and your comments on (IIRC) "dead broke". However, that's not a sound linguistic reason to reject it as a variety. (I'm not saying anything about "gobbledegooks" specifically here; it does seem very rare.) Equinox ◑ 17:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lecture, I am well aware of other forms of English, I just don't use them. Most of the adverse comments on my user page are directed at the spellcheck, which favours Am. English. I keep having to recorrect "corrected" spellings. I think the spelling gobbledegook may be mainly used in British English (it's the one I am used to), which may explain why usage of the plural is extremely rare. So what spelling appears in the sources quoted? Donnanz (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just American English. This article from The Daily Telegraph mentions an "attack of the corporate gobbledegooks" in the sense of "instance or example of gobbledegook". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "e" spelling (of the singular) occurs as often as the "y" spelling in British English, but the "y" spelling is five times as common in recent American English according to Google ngrams  D b f  i  r  s   18:50, January 31, 2015‎
 * What surprises me about those ngrams is how recent the word is: in both varieties and with either spelling, the word doesn't start getting used until the late 1940s. I expected it be about a hundred years older than that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what Oxford says in the link above. Donnanz (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. None of the entries for forms of this bear any attestation. Move to RfV if confirmation of any aspect of the inflection lines or definitions is needed. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. The nomination is not based on WT:CFI (yes, we do not ignore it), nor does it state a tentative principle to override CFI in this particular case. Wiktionary does not go by dictionaries as per long-standing practice, being an evidence-based descriptivist dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DCDuring and Dan. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I will have to concede defeat, but I feel that these two entries should have some sort of note added to them. Whoever archives this entry can do that. Donnanz (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kept: No delete votes and nomination withdrawn by nominator., when you say "note", do you mean a note about this being an uncommon usage? Pur ple back pack 89   15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely uncommon usage, also usage not recommended. Donnanz (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tagged both entries as nonstandard. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  15:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)