Talk:olinguito

Pronunciation
I do not know the "English" IPA, so I let you add the pronunciation. If you do not know it, you can hear it in this video around 1:05. Pamputt (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added it. The scientist describing it at says "We haven't been able to find native names for it", so I'm removing the translation requests for indigenous South American languages. —Angr 18:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion
This discovery was just revealed today, 15 August 2013. I have a feeling it will be extremely difficult to find any mention of it before today, although the scientists had apparently coined the term upon discovering them a few years ago, so it's certainly possible. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In cases like this I'd like to wave CFI altogether. While it's a protologism, it's so widely known now that there is little doubt that it will be citable a year from now. So I think we should just admit it and review it again in late 2014. 21:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is all over the news, and beyond that it is the name of an existing animal species. Even if the species goes extinct, it will always have existed, and this, now established, will always be the name for it. bd2412 T 13:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider also that we've had livermorium since the announcement of its name was made, and before a year had passed. 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think that the one-year-span provision of CFI should apply in such cases. The scientific community has established formal systems for naming things like taxons. To insist on consigning the names of newly-described taxons to the "word cellar" to mature for a year would essentially be to negate the authority scientists have in naming taxons and discount the system they use to do so. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @CCL: Sorry, but that made no sense to me. There are no "formal systems" for these names; you seem to have it confused with a taxonomic name. They have no "authority" and there is nothing to "discount". This is just another English word that somebody coined, and there's nothing special and scientific about it.
 * @everybody: I mean, I don't mind keeping this word around that much, but if you all feel that way, I guess we should codify that. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be a good idea to have a rule for such circumstances. I also agree that this is not a taxonomic name, but merely a cute and fuzzy "common name" that has been coined for this animal. I think it should be easy enough to delineate the circumstances under which a newly coined and widely reported common name can be considered to pass muster under the CFI. bd2412 T 17:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. This might also be useful to cover new taxa, new elements (as suggested above) and also official Chinese character coinages, which the government endorses for scientific terminology (like ). I think that perhaps this should be a !vote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to do it would be to exempt from the 1-year restriction coinages by an authoritative source that are unlikely to disappear within a year. It might be widened further to cover things like official spelling reforms where specific new spellings aren't specifically mentioned, but whose existence could be inferred by applying the new rules to existing forms. I'm not sure about the durably-archived part: most authoritative sources tend to have something durably-archived associated with announcements and press releases, but there might be exceptions. As far as the use-mention distinction goes, we might want to leave that in force, to protect against obscure official doublespeak. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It’s kind of unfair to waive the anti-protologism requirement when we delete protologisms created by newbies and block them if they try to readd them. On the other hand, it’s perfectly reasonable that we do so in this case. We should have a vote to explicitly add this exception to the CFI; something like “, except for scientific, widely published terms relating to newly discovered things.” — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I do edits on Wikipedia, not generally here, so what do I know, right. However the attestation criteria here state,
 * "Attested” means verified through:
 * clearly widespread use,
 * use in a well-known work, or
 * use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).
 * These read to me as 3 separate safe harbors. That's what us non-expert guys and dolls who do whole sentence and paragraph things would normatively get from the little "or" at the end of the second item, which usually means "any of the list", but I ain't a word-by-wordsmith. "Protologisms created by newbies" do not meet any of these criteria, while this word meets the first and second. As such, this outside thinker would not have thought a change would be required to the CFI. In summary, it is NOT "kind of unfair to waive any ...requirement": the requirement as written is met, based on the verifiable citations available in the sister Wikipedia article. Maybe that helps. Best wishes.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Read more. In addition to either clear widespread use, usage in well-known work, or usage in permanently recorded media, the citations need to be using the term (as opposed to just mentioning it,) have to be independent from each other, and have to span at least a year. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps you will discern more on your rereading my note "for the first time". What I set out to do was politely tell you what the "attested" criteria here on this side of the big friendly galaxy say to a "normal educated person". Not only did I read them, I cited them, and I analyzed them. And as a non-expert I light-heartedly and deferentially acknowledged potential technocratic issues in a domain that's not my home. Your instruction for me to "read' strikes me as peremptorily rude, but do have a nice day and thanks for the shave on my first visit to this beer house. We all need to be sternly told to read more! (Don't we?) But "we" do recognize the meaning of "or" in a list of safe harbor elements, whether "we" are long-bearded or not.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I’m not good at telling whether what I say or write in English is rude. You still aren’t understanding it though, it’s ((clearly widespread use) or (use in well-known work) or ((three uses in permanently recorded media) and (independent) and (spanning at least a year))). The word olinguito returns false. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * è lì il bello, grazie; I understand your parentheses, and that may be the working understanding of how things are done here. A close look at my original posting will see that I am sensitive to that possibility. If you are right, your side of the galaxy parses things in it's own special way, and "you all" might want to clean up the CFI, after all. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The CFI does not apply the "spanning at least a year" condition to every precedent criteria, since a single "well-known work" will do. However, by "well-known work" we do not mean, for example, CNN. CNN is well known, but it is a collection of lesser known works (individual articles). A "well-known work" would be a Shakespeare play, a Mark Twain novel, a John Locke treatise, a T.S. Eliot poem, and so on. In this case, however, I think we have clearly widespread use. There is no minimum amount of time for which use must persist before it can be deemed clearly widespread, and in addition to the initial publication in Smithsonian Magazine, I don't think there is a major news outlet, print or otherwise, that has not reported on this discovery. Before you know it, Disney will have a movie out starring a feisty but warm-hearted olinguito. bd2412 T 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear miglior fabbro, well I've learned a thing or two, and I defer to "you all," lest "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world," as to whether the 365-day time span does or doesn't apply to all the preceding criteria on the list. As a possibly interesting matter of perspective, I guess that in my galaxy we just fundamentally and reflexively think of well-respected, peer-reviewed articles which have been published in scientific journals as automatically being "use in a well-known work", (that is unless we come up with some major reason to question the overall credibility of the article/editor etc., and I'd also rush on to say we wouldn't rely on the spelling per se etc.) see: Conversely, we over here might have issues knowing what to make of this T.S. Eliot shanti(h) dude. Best wishes, I'm off for my home Wiki, be fruitful, and "thanks for all the figs"... or was it "thanks for all the fish"?! Figs, fish, figs... FeatherPluma (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I was about to go back up into my tree, and then I started to read some of the other entries here. Let me tell you, I AM AN INSTANT FAN. Some of the things here are truly FUNNY, and some are kind of interesting. And I started to get a hang of you all's citation stylistics and framework thinking and stuff. I'll come back! FeatherPluma (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC) P.P.S. Yes, it gets worse. I tried out some baby edits / adding citations. Hmmm, I'll need to work a bit more on this. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Returning to the fundamental point, the guideline in this Wiki clearly specifies that in "Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following..." (emphasis added). This is concordant with the help page, which I quoted previously. From these 2 locations, as written, I am confident that the 365 day requirement does not apply under the first 2 of the 3 independent pathways. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I spotted this and hoped nobody would rfv it. Clear widespread use? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so, but it couldn't hurt to add a few citations. Plenty of printed newspapers carried coverage. bd2412 T 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now added three citations to well-known publications which I believe are exemplary of widespread use. Would anyone object to calling this verified and closing this discussion? bd2412 T 19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the editors at Merriam-Webster, like most dictionaries, normally wait to see if a new word has legs, but they have adopted some terms instantly, the example cited being "designated hitter". Choor monster (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, favor seeing whether terms have legs, but this one seems virtually certain to last. I finally stumbled across an article about it today and naturally wondered whether we had it, this RfV not having penetrated my in-brain FL filter.  The result should clearly be that we have it.  I don't see the formal justification under the present rules, but certainly won't object to its inclusion. I suspect that this kind of consensus-reaching discussion is better than either new explicit criteria or procedural rules for granting exceptions to our explicit criteria, especially for relatively rare events. (Was tebowing the last previous case?) DCDuring TALK  22:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing as verified. Citations of widespread use have been added to the entry. bd2412 T 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I’d like to express my discontent with keeping this as clear widespread use. It’s a huge step between being suddenly published in a lot of news media and earning clear widespread use. Words like cow, sheep and horse have clear widespread use, not the name of some rare mammal who got his fifteen minutes of fame.
 * That said, I support keeping the entry in one way or another (the consensus is clear that this should be kept anyway). — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion 2
WT:CFI says that citations should span at least one year. This animal was discovered only a few months ago and therefore the usage of olinguito cannot possibly span a year in any language (except possibly Spanish). User:DCDuring suggests that an exception should be made for these cases, but I disagree because there is no way to tell if the Spanish name will stick in other languages. --WikiTiki89 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This was RFVed in August, and there was a strong consensus to keep it (see Talk:olinguito). I don't see a policy-based justification for that, but I don't really disagree with it, either. Meh... if this RFV goes the way many RFVs go, it'll sit here till next year anyway (lol), and at that point we can add some fresh citations and formally pass it. - -sche (discuss) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the name changes in one or more languages, it only takes a moment to make the appropriate corrections here on Wiktionary as the changes come to light. It is a nonproblem. —Stephen (Talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that this was previously RFVed (I guess I will start checking talk pages more often now), therefore I withdraw the nomination. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this picture of a baby olinguito should settle the matter. bd2412 T 17:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Awwwww. DCDuring TALK 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They should have called them Ewoks. Spinning Spark  20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As to the projected durability of the borrowed term, there is a convenient, comparable example: the related term olingo, for a larger creature from the same general vicinity, has been in scholarly use in English at least since 1965 and continues to be used. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish I could think up a formal policy that enabled us to include protologisms like this (and even tebowing) and yet exclude some of the less-likely-to-succeed suggestions of casual and near-vandal contributors. The formal policy is a good tool against the latter. Some kind of voluntary refraining from challenging the better protologism entries seems the best we can do. If a sincere contributor challenges a protologism, then we are confronted with the two-facedness of our practice. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The difficulty arises because the CFI has no concept of reliability of sources. If the spanning one year criterion was waived when all three (or maybe two) of the citations were to, for instance, peer reviewed scholarly papers then this entry would almost certainly pass while at the same time keeping out all the nonsense from the intercrud. <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that peer-reviewed scholarly papers are less likely to contain unaccepted neologisms? --WikiTiki89 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are certainly practices that make such words more likely to be accepted. If a kid hanging out at the park with his friends sees a previously unknown species of bird and says "from now on, I'm calling that a snurgle", it's far less likely to become a word than if a recognized ornithologist publishes an article in a recognized journal giving the bird the same designation. I see no reason why we can't acknowledge that distinction with respect to newly named animals, plants, elements, chemical formulas, and interstellar phenomena. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But why should we bother determining what to predict? Why not just wait a year and see what happens? --WikiTiki89 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because a thing postponed is often a thing undone. We have an entry; what's the win in putting it on a to-do list somewhere for a year from now?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could do it the other way. We could insert a "protologism" box or sense-level template with a month and year (say, 24 months after the date fo the first citation) in which the entry should be reviewed for citations that would "span one year". An entry that failed to have the requisite citations could be removed. DCDuring TALK 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For something like olinguito or livermorium, announced by scientists and immediately (and without question) reported in thousands of newspapers, journals, and other sources, why bother with the formalities? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, a few months after being "announced by scientists and immediately reported in thousands of newspapers", it could be completely forgotten about and never used again. --WikiTiki89 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully retort. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't necessarily mean people would forget the animal, just that it's possible that the first publicized name of the animal won't necessarily go on to be used as the animal's name. My main concern is that we will influence the re-adoption of a dead neologism by erroneously prematurely including it in our dictionary. --WikiTiki89 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you may be overestimating the influence that Wiktionary has (or could possibly have) on what people will call something for which a name has already been widely disseminated in the media. Writers are continuing to find reasons to write new articles on this animal, by this name, as of this week, and that is unlikely to slow down. I would imagine that zoos are looking to acquire specimens as well, and that books on the animal kingdom are adding information on them now to be published next year. Frankly, I don't see any reasonable path by which any other name could come to be used to describe them in a manner that would totally usurp olinguito before that term has been in use for a year. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC).
 * If you think that I "may be overestimating the influence that Wiktionary has (or could possibly have) on what people will call something" then you are taking me too literally. Also, I am arguing on principle, not on the specific case. It very well may be that olinguito has no chance of dying, but why should we have to decide what does and what doesn't have a chance of dying? Or more importantly, how could we consistently decide such a thing. --WikiTiki89 00:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We make these kinds of decisions all the time. Every time we decide whether a phrase is idiomatic, or whether a certain spelling of a term is an "alternative" spelling or a "misspelling", or whether the name of a fictional character has passed into attributive use, we are deciding what is a "word" for the purposes of this dictionary. Moreover, when it comes to making these decisions, "we" are everyone and anyone in the world who wants to participate in making these decisions. As for how we can decide these things, I would suggest an amendment to the CFI for names given to things like animal species and other things in the natural world, and thereafter reported in multiple widely circulated print media. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want to make a specific exception for animal species? That still doesn't help in the more general case. --WikiTiki89 14:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would make a specific exception for things named by scientists in the relevant field (animal, vegetable, chemical, etc., where these names were then published in a large number of well-read sources. Such names are indeed objectively more likely to endure than nonscientific fads like tebowing, planking, and twerking. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what languages will this apply to? Many languages have constant tug-of-wars between loanwords and native coined words, and despite having much publication at first, one of the two inevitably dies out and there's no telling which one it will be. --WikiTiki89 17:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you show me an example of that ever happening where both variations would not be included in Wiktionary (i.e., where one ultimately meets the CFI, and another ultimately does not)? Even when there are disputes over what to name a newly discovered element of the periodic table, the name officially announced by those recognized by the relevant agencies as having the authority to choose a name will stick. See Ununoctium - there were many proposed names, but none stuck because none was ever officially announced. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 18:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all instances of the loanword dying out are not very citable. This gives us a double standard, if the loanword is more successful, then the officially announced natively coined word will still probably survive. The problem occurs during that first year, when we would include the officially announced word and exclude the seemingly more popular loanword, because it hasn't been around for a year yet. This is basically taking sides, which we shouldn't do. We are supposed to be NPOV. --WikiTiki89 18:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because olinguito is very clearly citable. Most of these discussions have been about words that are very clearly citable. So if all instances of the word dying out are not very citable, then they aren't good examples for this discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. Read back a few posts to see what I was replying. I was referring to an arbitrary case of a new loanword (that was competing with an official native coinage) dying out, not to the word oliguito. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not a chance that we won't be able to find 3 citations spanning over a year for olinguito, at least in English. Someone will use the name they remember hearing, no matter how it's being obsoleted, or someone will use the word olinguito specifically as a mention to 2013. By that logic, we influence the adoption of dead neologisms all the time; zubr comes to mind, but we have lots of obsolete-for-good-reason words in Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may think you can predict the future, but you never know. zubr is not a dead neologism if you take "dead neologism" to mean a term that is coined and forgotten about in less than a year, which is how I meant it. --WikiTiki89 19:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You claim to have a concern about the consequences of keeping this word, which is itself a prediction of the future; you claiming that an event is likely enough to happen for us to be concerned about it. You're claiming that us keeping or not keeping a word will have a substantial effect on the likeliness of the word being forgotten when Wikipedia and the OED are keeping it, a prediction of the future that I find ludicrous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a "prediction" it's a precaution. I'm trying to say what may happen, while you're trying to say what will happen. --WikiTiki89 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Precautions are predictions. You're saying that the consequences of doing something are more likely to be negative then the consequences of not doing it. If we really are so influential, perhaps us removing olinguito will cause people to be confused about what to call this creature. That's a precaution we must consider in opposition to yours.
 * I'm claiming that the risk that olinguito won't pass CFI in a couple years is miniscule enough that acting as a precaution is going to be more problematic then just leaving it there. Instead dismissing it off hand, will you seriously consider the likelihood that the name for a creature that hit every major news outlet, at least in the US, Canada and UK, that has seen thousands of hits in printed works, will drop like a rock to zero in a year? A flash-in-the-pan word like Clintonomics still ended up in the title of a book in 2009. You think that everyone is going to a memo and there are going to be zero (0) citations in reliable sources in a year?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that since we don't know for sure what the outcome will be, we should follow WT:CFI. Unless you want to change WT:CFI to say that "entries that do not otherwise meet CFI may be included if Prosfilaes predicts that they will meet CFI in the future". --WikiTiki89 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't know for sure that we can delete it, if you're being pedantic about the meaning of "for sure". To be clear, we've dropped your main concern, and now we're just doing this to follow the rules? Actually, I would argue that this does follow WT:CFI, which puts no time limit on words in "clearly widespread use". And once we put concerns aside, there's no reason not to think about this and whether we want to edit CFI to make words like this eligible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly not in "clearly widespread use". Words in "clearly widespread use" are horse:, apple:, house:, etc. (i.e. words that anyone who speaks any English at at least a kindergarten level is sure to know). As far as CFI, if you can come up with a way to phrase it that does not predict the future, go ahead. --WikiTiki89 21:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, just like tebowing. DCDuring TALK 04:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a simplified procedure to allow protologisms with a chance for later review, so that inclusion is not once and for all, but we still can take advantage of the greater currency that we can offer, one of our supposed advantages over print dictionaries that we negate by excluding protologisms in principal namespace. DCDuring TALK 05:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that the taxonomic name, Bassaricyon neblina, is what is "official". DCDuring TALK 05:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this article, olinguito was short-listed by OUP to be word of the year. Wouldn't we want to be ahead of them at least? DCDuring TALK 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Their word of the year is just for publicity. --WikiTiki89 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately Wiktionary completely transcends such concerns, relying not at all on any considerations of reputation to attract and retain donors, editors, and users. All of these appear as part of our entitlement. The worriers do so only to give themselves something to feel important about. DCDuring TALK 02:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't do the wrong thing just for publicity, unless we decide that it is not wrong. --WikiTiki89 02:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One simple point is that a would-be user of Wiktionary who looked up our coverage of these items might not be impressed with our timeliness. That makes a difference if we would like to have human users.
 * Another is that in that not-too-distant past we would have probably had an entry, a request for entry, or a deleted entry for all eight of these. We are not getting as much interest from folks who care about words enough to contribute and who are in touch with new developments in English.
 * Both of these points suggest that we need to be nice to newbies and consider other ways of revitalizing our coverage of contemporary English. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I can think of is to get Wikipedia to point here more often. --WikiTiki89 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

etymology
Should it say "from the Sp. olingo (meaning olingo a small procyonid)+ ..." I seems strange to send readers off to the Sp. def which is a one word def olingo that leads to the same headword in English, and then one can start wondering what a procyonid, or kinkajou are... Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

RFV discussion: August 2014–January 2015
We now have our first hot word that was added more than a year ago. So following the procedure, we should re-evaluate it. —CodeCat 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The first amendment to the procedure should be to have the automatic RfV be at least 13 months after the first use. The cites I've added are probably not durably archived, being from the Smithsonian online. The first was apparently the initial public release of information and the second was their celebration of the first anniversary to the announcement. DCDuring TALK 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this comment is for olinguito. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. An RFV exactly 12 months later is probably going to fail on practical matters... —CodeCat 20:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we want to give Google Books a chance to generate cites, at least cites not directly copied from Wikipedia, we would probably want to wait at least 18 months. Similarly for Scholar. OTOH, News and Usenet cites could be quicker, so even 13 months might be enough. I'd prefer at least 18 months. More than two years seems too long if this approach is to work at all. DCDuring TALK 22:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Two recent on-line magazines Smithsonian, Science News, and one TV news show (with transcript) PBS that discuss the olinguito, "one year later".
 * “One question that was on everybody’s lips last year was: Could any animal be more adorable than the olinguito,” Helgen says. “And of course the answer is a baby olinguito.” Choor monster (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just a question of whether the sites are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I put the links/citations here. But I believe it's clear where this is going: of course there are going to be more olinguito stories, and some of them are going to be MSM even.  Choor monster (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I liked the cite about 'crowd-sourced' science from PBS and added it. I had seen the piece when it aired, but had forgotten about it. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a "journal" cite at Google Books dated September 1, 2014. That should do it. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (English section) RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2014–July 2015
Last time the arguments about whether or not to keep olinguito and the like came up, we agreed to keep it provisionally as a "hot word" to see whether usage satisfying CFI would appear once the term had existed for more than a year. This worked out for the English term, but I'm not sure there are any durably archived citations of this in Italian (I tried "gli olinguiti" and "l'olinguito" and did not find a single Italian use in a book), and more than a year has passed since Italians first used the word. This time, if we come up short we must delete the Italian entry. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Books are not the only source of citations. One definite print use from May 2014 here and one I'm uncertain about here (the website is "Partnered with la Repubblica", but I dont know whether that means la Repubblica reprints anything from it) which would push it over the one year mark. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it’s spelled wrong for Italian. The Italian should be olinghito, as mentioned here. —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither olinghito nor olinghiti nor olinghitos gets any Books, Scholar or Issuu hits; neither plural gets any raw web hits, and the singular only gets 16. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * olinguito + olinguiti don't get any hits in durable media, either. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)