Talk:noncisgender

RFV
This seems to be used as the name of various Web domains and Weblogs, but I cannot find any suitable citations in Google Books or Groups. Anyone else? Equinox ◑ 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like this must exist...if you include the hyphenated form there seem to be enough cites, between Google Books and Google Scholar. Should probably be at non-cisgender though. Ƿidsiþ 12:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations:non-cisgender suggests it's totally unattested without the hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well possibly. Personally I think an entry is harmless. Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The unhyphenated form doesn't get any hits in the usual places I look for citations. But, like Widsith, I don't see a major issue with including an "alternative form" entry for the unhyphenated form, since the hyphenated form is now attested. Astral (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Opinion is now a valid substitute for evidence, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The search bar autofill doesn't account for hyphens, so if someone enters noncisgender, non-cisgender won't show up among the drop-down list of hits. Therefore, retaining an entry for the unhyphenated form is beneficial to readers, because it allows them to find the entry for non-cisgender, which they might not be able to find otherwise. And while I, personally, would avoid creating an entry for noncisgender if I could only find cites for non-cisgender, if an entry for the former already existed or was created by someone else, I wouldn't be of the mind that it it was worth deleting over an unattested hyphen. People often choose to add or omit a hyphen when dealing with words prefixed with non-. Astral (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We could always replace the content of noncisgender with . - -sche (discuss) 15:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done what I suggested. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)