Talk:melanoheliophobia

RFV discussion: November 2021–June 2022
Fear of black holes. Equinox ◑ 17:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fear of made-up phobias. – Jberkel 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This means a fear of a black Sun – not even a black star. A black hole would become μέλαινα ὀπή (mélaina opḗ) when translated (by calquing) to Ancient Greek. --Lambiam 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the poor construction (as many words have poorly selected roots), the meaning is clear from the way people on social media keep re-stating the definition, as the fear of black holes. #melanoheliophobia. -- 65.92.246.43 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, people repeating a word, and saying "what a funny word this is", doesn't demonstrate actual usage or adoption into the language. (People have made good money selling books that are just "lists of phobias" that no doctor in the world would recognise, and perhaps have never been genuinely used at all.) Currently we don't usually allow tweets as citations either (WT:CFI), but I suppose that will change some day, since even the OED cites tweets. Equinox ◑ 02:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've only been able to find the one (repeated) usage on Google Books. No hits on Google Scholar nor Issuu, and I've seen no news articles thus far. AG202 (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of those humorous pseudo-Latin coinages like where half the joke is being able to work out the intended meaning with a basic knowledge of Latin roots. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be attestable by our standards at the moment. The  cite is a use and CFI-compliant. The books have melanoheliophobic as a use, but only a mention of melanoheliophobia.   WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has put a lot of (not durably archived) quotes on the page, but as says, all we really have is Killers of the Cosmos, unless you want to count the rather mention-y quote from Omnidoxy. Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See Votes/2022-01/Handling_of_citations_that_do_not_meet_our_current_definition_of_permanently_archived. Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The citations for this term have been put up for vote here Kiwima (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June–August 2022
This item was "kept" based on a pseudo-vote that did not conform to our CFI policy. It ought be deleted. It certainly is not a valid precedent. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. See Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling_of_citations_that_do_not_meet_our_current_definition_of_permanently_archived that I just linked to you in the other discussion. CFI did change 4 months ago. AG202 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion in question: . AG202 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep on the basis that this passed under the changed CFI policy: Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks. Theknightwho (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this - having read the discussion in question, this word was literally given as an example of a word that passed under the new CFI rules. To then nominate it for deletion on the basis that it was a "pseudo-vote that did not conform to our CFI policy" is really bad form, and this discussion should be speedy closed. Theknightwho (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for the reasons stated above. Binarystep (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Strong keep. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - well cited. Facts707 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Shouldn't have been nominated anyways. AG202 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)