Talk:licensize

RFV discussion: June–August 2012
Nothing in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious; such short words with common suffixes are usually attested, but you're right, and this doesn't get Usenet hits, either. "licencise" gets a few Usenet hits, as a reduplicative synonym or misspelling (take your pick) of "licence": Citations:licencise. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, all I can find is a website, so I don't think it deserves an entry. The uses I can find for "licensise" seem to be mistakes where "license" or "licenses" was intended, but -Sche seems to have found some genuine uses.    D b f  i  r  s   20:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The citations linked by -sche look like mistakes for licensed/licensing to me, as s/he seems to have already said. At least they are not unambiguously not mistakes. Spinning Spark  07:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I would read them, but some Wiktionarians (not any of us) seem to think that if they can find three "mistakes" or illiterate usages, then the error deserves an entry.   D b f  i  r  s   09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * -sche’s citations look like adjectives, instead of verb forms, to me. Ungoliant (Falai) 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, licensize still has no citations, and I'm not going to create licencise myself without stronger citations. For one thing, the 6 Nov 2001 one was written by an American, which speaks against interpreting it as "licenc(e)+ise" (why the British spellings, licence+ise, rather than license+ize?). On the other hand, what speaks in favour of the others being some neologistic verb "licencise" is: I can see "licencise" (?) as a misspelling of "licenses" ... but "licencising" (?) as a simple misspelling of "licensing" ? Why the extra "is"? - -sche (discuss) 16:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)