Talk:thirteensome

RFD discussion: September 2023
has put this up for speedy deletion, I contested this and they told me to go to rfde or rfve. I'll let them explain their rationale. 115.188.126.180 08:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Reason is same as above section one's. Word0151 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What section ? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ex-king section Word0151 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, it has three cites and I don't see how this is different from thirteenth and thirteenfold. Afaik the only exclusion policy on numbers is WT:CFI which only applies to numbers above 100 that are not single words. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Muqanna The word is clearly created by the authors in analogy with threesome and neither it complies with WT:ATTEST Word0151 (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Err, so? Loads of words are created by analogy, just search "by analogy with" for instances in etymology sections. Attestation issues are handled by WT:RFV, not RFD, but this entry already has three independent citations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that it satisfies WT:ATTEST, but still don't think this entry should exist.
 * "by analogy with"; did you see I also wrote : '''created by the authors
 * ''' Word0151 (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Muqanna Word0151 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see it. Plenty of words are rederived rather than specifically learned, including most English ordinal numbers; this is indeed one of the mechanisms of language change. "Not rederived" is not one of our inclusion criteria. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Al-Muqanna i just saw sixteensome is even more citeable; i think i will add it Word0151 (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like this entry, but it's the price we pay for having clear and consistant rules that ordinary mortals can apply. The examples do have a sort of mentiony feel: they're used only to contrast with more common -somes for purposes of exaggeration, not because someone has a literal grouping of 13 in mind. That said, I'm having trouble even explaining why I don't like the quotes, let alone providing any repeatable test that could be applied to any other case. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ( How is "[a music piece] they are arranging for a “thirteensome” made up of eleven ukuleles, one mixed voice and a snare drum" not referring to a literal grouping of 13? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC))
 * This has clearly been submitted by someone unaware of how dictionaries work. We can safely disregard their presented arguments. Vininn126 (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record we also have . I’ll vote keep anyway. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as nominated without a valid policy rationale. This is clearly an attested term, and a single word rather than a phrase, so it fairly represents the baseline of includability, every bit as much as twosome or threesome. bd2412 T 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some IPs around who are really into numbers. In German someone has created hundreds of entries like, etc. But yes, keep obv. Jberkel 21:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep due to absence of rationale, and plausibility! But by all means send to RFV if needed. Equinox ◑ 21:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To do what tho? It already has 3 cites. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added another. Perhaps we should find nine more to make it a thirteensome. bd2412 T 00:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy kept. There's no issue here. Jewle V (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)