Talk:ownage

Obviously leet, which we don't include on en.wiktionary.org. Any real print citations? The entry was errantly marked as "rfvpassed" with no discussion? --Connel MacKenzie 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't include leet? Why not?
 * It's pretty obvious that this is real and in wide use on the internet, which is what verification is supposed to prove. It would be nice to find some print citations somewhere, but I don't think it should be required in this case. --Ptcamn 12:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what Connel means is that we don't keep it if it has not passed into general use, with reference to WT:CFI's guideline that use be widespread. However, I'm not sure that this doesn't meet that standard.  See the 3440 hits  in Google's USENET archive in a wide variety of newsgroups.  I can't add these at the moment but if someone else wants to trawl through these for decent cites... --Jeffqyzt 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I retagged it as I didn't see any discussion for or about it anywhere. Obviously, (or maybe not so obviously?) the entry can use a fair bit more cleanup and more citations if we are going to keep it.  --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)