Talk:kanabcigaredo

RFV discussion: September 2020–January 2022
Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @J3133: Of this word, there exists an article on Wikipedia, as well as an | entry on Wiktionary, not to mention its consistent and concise etymology, which is given. Is there any reason as to why you doubt this word's existence? Jackchango (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jackchango: See WT:CFI: “We do not quote other Wikimedia sites”. A “consistent and concise etymology” is not relevant because it does not replace citations. J3133 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @J3133: While I disagree with this consensus as well as its representativity, (years ago and from few users) does a bab.la entry suffice? There also appear to be a few others, too. (from dict.cc, Glosbe, and OpenTran) This word is no doubt accepted by the Esperanto community. Jackchango (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jackchango: I already saw those dictionary entries, which are mentions, not uses. J3133 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @J3133: The difference being? Why are waiting for someone to use a word in a creative work when we there is already wide consensus of its existence? Jackchango (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Jackchango: The difference being Wiktionary’s CFI policy. J3133 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @J3133: OK, so this is what I'm picking up from this. Despite there being unanimous consensus of the word existing, the sole reason it won't be listed on this site is because of sources consisting of "lone definitions" due to this CFI policy? What is the reasoning behind this? Jackchango (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is “unanimous consensus” of this word being mentioned by dictionaries, not of it being used. WT:RFV is the place for “prov[ing] that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion”, not for changing the CFI. J3133 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @J3133: I now understand the difference, and I never brought up changing it. I just asked for reasoning, and since you are enforcing this rule so strongly, I think it would be safe to assume you know why it is put in place. Why are we dismissing dictionary entries as mentions when the clearly provide meanings? Jackchango (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * English dictionaries have lots of terms that someone made up for a word list, a dictionary added based on the word list, and other dictionaries copied from that dictionary. Constructed languages have the added problem that everything is so regular that it's possible to predict the exact spelling of a term that no one has even made up yet. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. You can't describe something as existing that numerous sources agree theoretically ought to exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the issue here, I never coined the term. Is your argument a lack of standardization? What on Earth other than spliff could "cannabis cigarette" possibly translate to? Seven sources (two of which aren't allowed for reasons unbeknownst to me) point toward the word existing, exact spelling and all. How many more do we need for it to stop being "theoretical?" Is it just three people to use it in creative work? Where do you think they will get the word from, if not these sources? Jackchango (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @J3133, @Jackchango: I don't speak Esperanto, but does this suffice as a quote? Also, definitely a reference. Thadh (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The WordPress blog is not durably archived and the dictionary entry is a mention. Note that Esperanto terms need three citations, not one. J3133 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another mention: ; More quotes from WordPress: (maybe we should archive these?) I furthermore think one can't really expect to find enough mentions of this particular word because of its and the language's context. Thadh (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I get one result for kanabcigaredon (dum e [sic] tri monatoj, nur pro tio, ke tiu fumis kanabcigaredon!) from this issue of Kontakto, but there is no usable preview; the Google preview probably contains a scanno. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just added that quote the the article. 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)