Talk:undecomino

I think this might be a word: John Cross 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One definition failed RfV in 2007. The full-view raw bgc hits seem to be scannos. DCDuring TALK 09:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV
Class of shape. Does not seem attestable. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly sees (rather limited) use on the Web, but I see nothing at all for it, undecominoes, or undecominos on Usenet, Books, News, News Archive, or Scholar. A shame: it looks like it should be a word.... &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, don't change the definitions of word in order to mention this list of sites. The sense of word has nothing to do with them. Lmaltier 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we have CFI if we are not to use it? IMO, when a "real" word is just barely too rare to meet the rules (e.g. this one citation instead of three), it's like the age of consent on sex. If the girl is a few days under 16, hey, what does it matter? But it's still illegal because the bar has to be set somewhere. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Lmaltier is proposing we ignore the CFI. He's explicitly taking issue with your usage of "attestable" (we often use "attested/-able" to mean "cited/-able per the CFI", but that's inconsistent and incompatible with 's real-world meaning among real-world linguists) and he's explicitly taking issue with msh210's usage of "word" to mean "CFI-meeting word". And I think he's right in both cases: we should distinguish between WT:CFI itself and the concepts underlying it, or else we won't have the vocabulary to justify and discuss changes to it. ("Why on Earth would you want to make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 17? People over the age of 16 can give consent, so what's the problem?" "I don't think people under 17 can really give consent." "No, the law explicitly says that 16 is the age of consent.") —Ruakh TALK 13:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, this is exactly what I was meaning. I also think that CFI are inconsistent and that most CFI rules might be justifiable for a paper dictionary, and are unjustifiable here, but this is another point. Lmaltier 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is attested on the Web (more than 400 Google hits). One Google Books hit (in Mcgraw-Hill Dictionary Of Mathematics). Clearly, this is a word. Lmaltier 21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant it looks like it should be inclusible. (But it's not AFAICT.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know Lmaltier is perhaps the most inclusionist Wiktionary editor ever. Where he and I disagree specifically is what should the minimum be for inclusion. Sure, every word needs really world usage, but how many uses? I get 71 hits on Google, many of those are not English, such as Finnish (or Estonian, I can't tell the difference) and Korean! Also some of the results aren't uses but mentions like this one, so overall I don't think 50 or fewer uses of the word can be 'clear widespread use'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not clear widespread use, this is obvious, but no dictionary includes only words with clear widespread use (except maybe dictionaries for children), and CFI states that all words are welcome. It's often for words that are not of clear widespread use that the dictionary is most useful. On the other hand, words of clear widespread use might be excluded because it is unlikely that somebody will look for their meaning. Actually, CFI are inconsistent, they should be changed. Lmaltier 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * About inclusionism, this means something for Wikipedia, but here, it makes sense only for phrases (the basic principle is all words). I want to include only words (including phrases that can be considered as words). I would remove all phrasebooks entries for individual sentences (and create real phrasebook pages), so I feel that I am much less inclusionist than most people here. Lmaltier 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed, because it does not meet our current CFI. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

citations of use
I do one possible use : Now if we can find two more... - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2011, The Big Book of Visual Sudoku: 273 Puzzles, page 118:
 * With five squares, it would be a pentomino - nine, a nonomino, eleven, an unwieldy undecomino!