Talk:interquel

Was deleted from Wikipedia as non-existent w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requel. bd2412 T 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Without researching, I've never read/heard it (or midquel) used.--Halliburton Shill 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Only seems to appear in urban dictionaries.--Dmol 07:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "interquel" has been used in several websites, and some which no longer exist. It was protect-deleted from Wikipedia. It is either a stable or diffused neologism, not a protologism. Tedius Zanarukando 02:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the part where you provide evidence... - TheDaveRoss
 * Now cited. Edit: including newspaper quote. There is also a Google scholar hit, although it is mention and not use. DAVilla 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from RFV
--Connel MacKenzie 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it seems somewhat suspect, but I'm sure I have heard this word somewhere before. RobbieG 14:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is already cited, having passed through the RFV process. Is there a particular reason for re-nomination? DAVilla 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops. I was spot checking a series of bad-faith contributions, and nominating the ones with zero b.g.c. hits.  Curious that after a couple months, there are no new uses of this neologism/nonce.  I guess it is just an unusable construction.  --Connel MacKenzie 06:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask that someone who is able provides an etymology for -quel, which is common unto all these words. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a severing of the root sequi in sequel. Joe Webster 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied to talk. DAVilla 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)