Talk:palaeodicotyledon

RFV discussion: August–September 2018
Attestable? Equinox ◑ 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. I betcha even if Kiwima cranks up her creativity level to 11, she still won't be able to find anything --XY3999 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you search for the plural there are a few hits. The singular form is a nonstandard backformation. DTLHS (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have put two citations of the plural (and capitalized) on the citations page. Other than that, all I could find was one mention of the singular. Kiwima (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see someone added a third cite to the citations page, although it is rather mention-y. What do people thing? Is this cited? Kiwima (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I added it. It looks like a high-quality mention to me, not a use. DCDuring (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kiwima: "They have variously been termed, informally, as palaeodicotyledons". It seems to me that the focus is on the word itself, not what it refers to; hence's it's a mention. Per utramque cavernam 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought you were contradicting Kiwima, but you're not, actually. So do you agree that the quote you added isn't really enough? Per utramque cavernam 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If other folks buy that cite, then I'm fine with keeping the entry. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Two of the cites are capitalized, all of them are for Paleodicotyledons, one is barely a use. Hardly adds up to 3 citations. DTLHS (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The first one attests the spelling  Paleodicotyledons, not Palaeodicotyledons; or is it an oversight/typo? Also: "arranged alphabetically with the major categies" > "categories"? Per utramque cavernam 21:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They were typos. Fixed now.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)