Talk:necrobump

RFV discussion: August 2015–March 2016
Can't find attestation. I find some hits in Google groups but only in the parts that are not Usenet, and we need Usenet I think. Anyone has a better luck? . --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We could probably quibble over the individual forms (how many -ing, -ed, etc.) but I think this is a good adequate set. We should still consider the "alternative forms" at the lemma, though, e.g. "necro bump": is this a verifiable form, or just someone's arbitrary idea of a different way to write it? Equinox ◑ 23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My experience is that verb inflections and plural forms of nouns don't require individual attestation. Not unless they don't follow standard English grammatical rules. As for superficially-different alternative spellings - i.e., solid, hyphenated, spaced - I don't think there's any agreement. I've seen things pass RfV with two cites of one type and one of another (e.g., two solid, one hyphenated), but I've also seen stuff get deleted even with five cites because said cites were spread between solid, hyphenated, and spaced forms. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a commonly-known term now. While it didn't seep through the book writing process yet, it is easily recognized, and liked by Internet forum lurkers of all kinds. Yurivict (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We've tended to consider different spellings to require their own citations. However, I've managed to find a few more citations. At least one of the spellings is cited now, on the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...namely "necro-bump" (and possibly "necro bump"); so I suppose this page should be moved to the hyphenated form. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved to the attested form. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)