Talk:prospiracy

RFV discussion: July–October 2023
A nonce word that has been coined by various people in various senses, but the specific one with which the page was created doesn't seem to be very attestable from what I've managed to gather. I've added various uses that I could find with other meanings to Citations:prospiracy but overall I don't think this nonce coinage with disparate meanings really deserves an entry (I hope this won't be another situation...) lattermint (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed lattermint (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With eleven cites it's definitely cited. As with transgendercide, we may have to do some sense-merging to work it out though. The current definition looks like it comes from the ., would you have any ideas on tweaking the definition? I saw that you were able to salvage transgendercide. TDHoward (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (who I think is ) do you remember how you came across this word? Ioaxxere (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I gathered two citations for it when I originally added it to the Double-Tongued Dictionary: https://www.waywordradio.org/prospiracy_3/ and https://www.waywordradio.org/prospiracy_2/ GrantBarrett (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are actually only two durably archived uses there (the first book and the Dazed quote). lattermint (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Raymond book and the Burgess and Godey books are durably archived as well. TDHoward (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the Raymond quote is not from a book, it's from his personal blog, i.e. a website. And besides, the sense in which it the word is used there doesn't align with "a secret plan to do good" in the slightest, and for it be able to jive with whatever other quotations there could be you'd have to shoehorn two almost antonymic meanings into the definition. As of the Burgess quote, while yes, it is durably archived, I'm failing to see how the word in it carries any sense whatsoever, let alone the asserted one. lattermint (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the two blog quotes are not usable. However it does seem to me from the context that the 1897 Burgess use is also intended to mean a well-intentioned conspiracy: they're conspiring to ensure someone has a happy marriage by acting as a harsh guardian and banning them from marrying so they elope together. The pairing with "sheep in wolf's clothing" also suggests this. In that case it would pass alongside Mielke and Pinchbeck, having been coined three times. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then, RFV open again. lattermint (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Searching the Newspaper Archive I found yet another case of it being recoined in that sense btw, though just a mention (added it as the Citations:prospiracy Sydney Morning Herald quote). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited. With the Burgess, Mielke, and Pinchbeck quotes. TDHoward (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * RFV passed. TDHoward (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)