Talk:xilinous

RFV discussion: October 2023–June 2024
A lovely word but I just can't find any uses: not in books, not in the news, not even on the raw web; all ten pages of Google results this gets are mentions. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Cited(?), although I only found one non-contrived quote. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, the last one is hardly a use. The words on that front cover are more akin to an artwork than things intended to convey meaning. This, that and the other (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a mention: the words in the title are surrounded by a list of adjectives that describe some quality perceived by the senses, and our definition, "pertaining to or made of cotton", doesn't fit- "cottony" might, but not this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the third one is mention since is being used to evoke a cottony texture ( is also on there). I call it contrived, though, since it's obvious xilinous is only there on account of the initial "x". Ioaxxere (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

look Input needed on: Is the third citation a genuine use? This, that and the other (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Citation three does not convey "cottony", nor does two. They attest the mere existence of the letter sequence, but not its meaning. DCDuring (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that, despite being contrived, which it obviously is, it is a genuine use. The author is not coining words to make her alphabetical list of adjectives, but choosing words, even if they are obscure. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The 2003 McKean citation is borderline: it seems to be the kind of work that lists obscure words and their definitions, but because it does technically slot the words into explanatory sentences (but in italics...) rather than listing them in a bullet-pointed list and defining them, it's arguably maybe passable. The 2018 Lupton cite is also borderline. If the portion our entry currently quotes ("Beyond pungent, quiet, rank, silky, tart, unctuous, viscous, waxy, xilinous, yeasty, zingy Vision") were the totality of the citation, and that occurred as a sentence (either inside the book, or even just as its actual title), I would say it was on the "technically a use of the word in a sentence" side of the line; however, when considering the entire cover, where the ABC adjectives have been inserted in between the words of the title and are not intended to be read as part of the title (the book's own inside cover lists its title as "Title: The Senses: Design Beyond Vision"), they seem more like a wordlist, and do not seem like uses in any case; the book does not seem to ever use the word. If there were e.g. a lot of uses of this online, that would be evidence that it should be kept even with such borderline cites, but since in fact it appears to see virtually no use anywhere, and since we would have to really squint to generously interpret not just one but two of the only three borderline cites as being arguably-maybe on the 'use' side of the line, I think it's safer to RFV-fail it for now. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So, RFV-failed at this time. - -sche (discuss) 14:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)