Talk:openum

RFV discussion: October 2016–May 2017
Nothing obvious on the first couple of Google book search result pages. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Used in a well-known work, see , in Chapter 24. Also see this. And see this. I've heard before that the fact that a word is used in a notable work like The Jungle alone makes it attested in some cases. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The third one is for a different sense (openum closum refrigeratus is pseudo-Latin, not 'open them'). The 'usage in a well-known work' rule was abolished in favor of the the other criteria on the list. I think things only used in well-known works are allowed in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It can't be that well known, as I've never heard of it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say that; never heard of it. But we do seem to have two citations so far. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * . Formerly we allowed a word to be included based on its use in a single well-known work. In English this would lead to the inclusion of typography errors from Shakespeare and much of Finnegan's Wake. We repealed that exception to the general rules in WT:ATTEST with respect to works in "well-attested languages" in a vote.  would probably have not made the cut as a well-known work, as it has never been well-known outside the US and seems dated now. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)