Talk:superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen

superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen
Finnish. Same as above, but I didn't know what inflected forms to search for, so it still might be salvageable. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was in the local Mary Poppins translation. So that's one cite. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem? The word is used in a well-known work (Maija Poppanen, Maija Poppanen (elokuva)). If I read the WT:CFI correctly, it should be enough. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that a well-known work? Meh... I guess so. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think grouping it with Shakespeare and James Joyce is a bit much... we usually require a higher standard than that for a "well-known" work. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think we should be careful promoting a translation as a well-known work unless it's actually a well-known work in its own right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In English, I'd hazard a guess that more people have heard the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" than have read Joyce's dense writings, though I'd also guess more Wiktionary editors would count Joyce than would count Mary Poppins. (I might be wrong, though; the volume of Joyce's nonces has led more than one editor to complain.) The question here, though, is whether Maija Poppanen stands beside the Kalevala as a well-known work in Finnish. Hekaheka, Jyril and heyzeuss are probably best-qualifier to answer that question. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny, I was going to mention the Kalevala too, but I thought better of it. That's a high bar, though. The thing is, in a value judgment, Finns both know the most about the subject at hand and are also arguably the most biased toward keeping a Finnish entry, even lacking more than one cite. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly supercalifragilisticexpialidocious has no cites at all :) On the more serious side, the "supercali"-song has been published in Finnish in the songbook Suuri Toivelaulukirja 16 as song nr. 82, p. 54. The editors of the book are Raimo Henriksson and Olli Heikkilä and it is published by F-Kustannus, Helsinki, ISBN 951-757-695-1. The word appears in this web discussion, permanently archived by YLE, the Finnish Broadcasting Company. It appears that somebody has voted it for the most beautiful Finnish word! Maija Poppanen was shown as musical in the City Theatre of Helsinki in 2009 and the word appears at about 1min 20 secs of this video clip. I also found bits of web discussions in which people wondered what might be the English original. The linguistic value of this entry might be questionable but there are definitely people out there who would want to find it somewhere. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say cites in this context, I mean quotes that could be placed in the entry. The English entry is quite citeable. It doesn't seem like Finnish actually has any more cites to offer than the first one. The songbook is not independent, YLE is not considered durable, and YouTube is nowhere near durable. So it stills circles back to the question of whether this specific Finnish translation is in fact a notable work to such a degree. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't think YouTube would be an acceptable citation. I thought that if there's a play, there's a handwriting. I was in fact able to locate it, but they actually use another "translation" superylipoppelistikexirallinmoista in the play. On the video clip it was pronounced so fast that I erred to believe it was the same word. So, as far as I am concerned, you may delete this and the others as well.
 * Now, a new question arises: what should be done with the translations -section of "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? It seems obvious that it consists mainly or exclusively of unattestable words, which have no usage outside Mary Poppins -world. Still, they are words that have undeniably been used as translations of the original term.
 * Btw., if any electronic archive can be considered durable, YLE's should as well. It's not just another broadcaster, but a national institution which archives every single bit of program they ever air. It reads on top of the page that the discussion is stored in their permanent archive. The true problem with YLE quote is that it is a mere mention. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One more thing: why aren't we discussing French, Catalan and Spanish entries at the same time? They are equally suspicious as Japanese, Norwegian, Finnish and Portuguese, I would assume. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I love YLE (they have radio in Latin!), and if you want to make a vote for considering it durably archived, feel free. I'd support it. Anyway, in case you think there's language favoritism going on: there isn't. There is no Catalan entry to RFV (not sure why you thought there was), and the Spanish is easily citeable, not suspicious at all. You are right about the French, though; see below. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have a list of electronic archives considered durable? WT:CFI doesn't mention one, and I don't know where else to look for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to think there is such an archive but I can't remember the name. But in a sense it's just subjective opinion because we have no definition of "durably archived". That is, anyone can add anything or take anything out of the list because there are no guidelines on what "durably archived" means. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion, I indexed all the discussions I could find of the durability of various things. - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed as moved to RfD. bd2412 T 18:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have opened WT:RFD, as this seems hard to decide going by evidence only, and RFD is more open to judgment calls and voting. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen
I am opening this RFD to close a RFV. The RFV seems hard to close going by evidence only, so a RFD seems appropriate.

For a RFV discussion, see WT:RFV. For attestation evidence in Wiktionary (I see none), see superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen and Citations:superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen.

I motion to delete the page as unattested. The term has zero Google books hits, and less than 1000 Google web hits. There was a pro-keeping argument by considering the "well-known work" item in WT:ATTEST, but I do not see it as obvious that the work in question (Mary Poppins) is a well-known work, nor do we have a standard for what "well-known work" means. I do not known the work, while I could name a couple of works by Shakespeare, so I reject the "well-known work" item from applying to the discussed term. As a disclaimer, I have tried to have the "well-known work" item removed from WT:CFI in the past, and I may try to do so again in future, so I am generally unfavorable to the item, but even I have to admit that e.g. Much Ado about Nothing is a well-known work, whether I like the item or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No chance it is a well-known work. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mary Poppins is a rather well-known work in English; but in Finnish? (Let's not, for example, allow all the Joycean nonce words in various French translations.) Equinox ◑ 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite well-known also in Finland. The movie was extremely popular, and there have been several theater productions. This particular song has been recorded in Finnish and it became quite popular as well. 1000 hits is not so bad for Finnish. It's a small language with only five million speakers. Even if we don't count Indians and Pakistanis, there are at least 100 times as many English speakers around. If 1,000 hits is some sort of criterion, we'll have to delete much of the current Finnish content. That said, delete by all means, too much energy has been spent on discussing it already. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)