Talk:thneed

RFV
A fictional multipurpose object in Dr Seuss's The Lorax (which, incidentally, is excellent). I don't see this passing WT:FICTION though. Equinox ◑ 21:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be doable. I don't have time now, but I'll try to deal with that bye-the-bye. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A verification request for the "thneed"? Is this a real word, one of which we have need? With adjectives, adverbs, and nouns we're replete; But lacking this word can our work be complete? Our duty to document use I won't shirk, but surely its source is one quite well known work, But if that's not enough for us to keep and prize it, Might I suggest that we appendicize it? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Bravo. Ƿidsiþ 07:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Earlier took the tl;dr approach and only read the last line and passed this by; thank you Ƿidsiþ for your comment, as it prompted me to read Chuck's full post, and I certainly feel in a better mood for it. :)  Yay for good, fun writing.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless bd2412 has the same first name as I do, I think you've got the wrong person. Still, if I'm going to be complimented in error, I guess it's nice to be erroneously complimented for something as good as this... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for posting so late. I'm sure I saw your name just before writing the above post, but it must have been in a different thread.  Thanks then to bd2412 for the good writing, and thanks to Chuck for being a good sport.  Cheers!  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I finally got back to this. I cited it; can somebody confirm that it passes WT:FICTION now? (BTW, I had to change the definition to cite it.) --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reservations about the 2012 citation which encloses the term in quotation marks, and I note that the other two citations capitalise it (one egregiously and one because it capitalises every word in the sentence), but there are enough other citations on Usenet (and perhaps the original one by Dr Seuss counts, too) that I say this passes. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)