Talk:wittle

Request for verification
Do we take baby talk...what's next? Goldenrowley 06:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's obviously verifyable in print, but it's not a word in the standard dictionary sense.  I've modified the entry slightly, but I'd be happy to delete it. On the other hand ... "all words in all languages" ...   D b f  i  r  s   06:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whath nektht, you athk? f u cn rd ths msg u cn Gss. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This would seem to be a question for RFD (or the BP): it's clearly attested. I think we should keep such attested babytalk. But even if the community disagrees with me and says to delete such, perhaps this one should be kept, since there's another sense. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: attestable, like ickle:. But I wish we had a standard template for "childish, hypocoristic" or what not. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Context template:childish categorizes in category:Childish. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cited (but I dunno about wittler and wittlest; separate RFVs needed?). Equinox ◑ 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is an RFD issue at this point, but I'd say strong keep on the basis that someone may in fact see the word in print and not know what it means. bd2412 T 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)