Talk:registración

This word does not exist in spanish. The noun of "registrar" is "registro" not "registración".

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=devoci%F3n
 * Based on faulty logic, http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=registrac%F3n says "La palabra registración no está en el Diccionario." It doesn't say it's not a word. Dictionaries say what are words, they don't say what aren't. Anyway, there are LOTS and LOTS of uses of this in real books; gets "Aproximadamente 60.800 resultados (0,27 segundos)", and the plual gets 20k hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

registración
This isn't a word. Even Google Translate won't give you "registración" as a Spanish alternative to "registration." Just one of many Spanglish entries out there. The Royal Spanish Academy does not recognize this as a word. ESanchez013 (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Royal Spanish Academy is not part of WT:CFI. If it is an actual word that has seen use, then we will record it as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, bad nomination btw, maybe we should close it as kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because it originated in Spanglish it doesn't mean it's not a word. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but maybe mark as "U.S." or "nonstandard" or something. Do we even have a tag for U.S. Spanish? —Angr 19:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * . The term meets WT:CFI, in particular WT:ATTEST, yet WT:ATTEST would be questioned in WT:RFV anyway. No reason for deletion relating to WT:CFI has been given by the nominator. The nominator wants the entry deleted on prescriptivist grounds, while Wiktionary is a descriptivist dictionary. On WT:ATTEST anyway: shows 828 hits; for comparison, see also the stated synonym  with its 1,035 hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept, perfectly valid word in Wiktionary. The RAE rules have nothing to do with ours. --Cova (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopened, to allow comments from more people; this has been closed after only two days from the nomination. This RFD can serve to show how many editors support that Wiktionary is descriptivist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, way to make me feel welcome. Immediately tagged "bad nomination", "oh, screw you, because we're descriptivists, so take your arguments elsewhere" feelings written all over this nomination. I'm sorry if I upset y'all's perfect little world. I'll just stick to Wikipedia. ESanchez013 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand; you expect us not to tag something a bad nomination that is a bad nomination to make you feel welcome? We are descriptivists, so yes, you need to use different arguments. This is not terribly different from Wikipedia; try to delete Abortion and see how far you get and how nicely you're treated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't understand what made it a bad nomination. But in any case, "abortion" is an actual process and word. Over there, we also have rules on articles that aren't about real things. Again, sorry if I disturbed you. Peace. ESanchez013 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have rules; they're defined in WT:CFI. We describe the language as it is used, not how Royal Spanish Academy wants it to be used. For our purposes, a word is a word if someone is actually using it to communicate, whether or not any "official" body has declared it to be a real word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Detagged by WF; I'm striking as kept. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)