Talk:simples

RFV discussion
Is this in widespread use in UK as meaning "That is easy to understand" or does it need attestation? DCDuring TALK 18:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it's based on a recent series of television advertisements, featuring animated Russian meerkats with appropriately 'broken' English. Like this one —CodeCat 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been vaguely aware of it within the last three years or so, but only on the Internet. I didn't think it was a UK thing. Equinox ◑ 19:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like a protologism. Needs the normal attestation. SemperBlotto 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cited. It seems to be pretty new; I just barely managed to find one cite that was more than a year old. (Well, I found another one that was a year and several days old, but since I didn't want to find and add a cite from within the past week for the "spanning at least a year" ConFI, it wasn't useful.) —Ruakh TALK 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, all of the cites that I added seem to be by UKians, and the same is true of all of the cites that I found but didn't add. (Only about three or four of those, so not a huge sample.) —Ruakh TALK 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Connel's suggestion at [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-12/Attestation criteria]], I'm listing the "score" of these cites according to that proposal. Ruakh said he found six or seven cites, which I understand to mean Usenet cites, so, assuming six, that's 13 points. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed (under current criteria, of course). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)