Talk:winninger

RFV discussion: April 2016
should there be meanings besides the 'comparative' form?

It seems that the comparative form should be sufficient. 73.71.174.75 20:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree - The second definition just amounts to the comparative form of winning - but doesn't this belong in requests for deletion? It is not a matter of verification. Kiwima (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can move it all to one line, leaving what is currently in sense 2 for clarification Leasnam (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The anon was the contributor of much of the additional material to the entry and may have had an intent that would have made this more appropriate for the Tea Room.
 * But it is here now. I don't think the third citation, a newspaper sports headline that opposes winninger and losinger is valid for attestation. It is both headline hucksterism and humor based on the use of transparently nonstandard words. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Striking since there's no nomination here. Let's either archive or move to a suitable forum. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RFV closed as out of scope. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)