User talk:Brusquedandelion

WT:RFV
Hi - please don't remove rfv from entries simply because there are quotes there, because WT:RFV has a defined process that we must follow. For English (and other well-documented languages), the threshold for inclusion (see WT:CFI) is three citations. Since only has two, it doesn't yet qualify. In fact, in this particular case, the two quotations given look to be the only two uses ever, and I haven't been able to find any others after looking quite extensively. Theknightwho (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Theknightwho This guideline doesn't make any sense. There are many older words for which there are only ever a few or even just one attestation. We have entire categories devoted to hapax legomena, so this seems at odds with your claim regarding what the guidelines stipulate. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brusquedandelion Note that that isn't the case for English (see Category:English hapax legomena, which is (effectively) empty). Languages which aren't on the list of well-documented languages can, of course, have hapax legomena as entries; see WT:LDL. Theknightwho (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho The English of the 1700s is, by definition, not well-attested on the Internet, as the Internet did not exist in the 1700s. I don't see why WT:WDL should cover the English of the 1700s any more than it should cover Middle English (which it doesn't). And by "English of the 1700s", I mean words which are now obsolete but which were not so in the 1700s. Ditto 1800s or 1600s. It's not at all clear to me why English magically goes from being a limited documentation language to a high documented language in the 1500s (with the generally agreed upon advent of "Modern English"), when the guidelines about this clearly refer to "languages well documented on the Internet", and the Internet has only been a thing for a few decades. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brusquedandelion This isn't something I have the unilateral power to change. In general, I'm inclined to agree with you that we shouldn't be so strict about Early Modern English or dialectal terms, but the policy is what it is. The list of what we call "languages well documented on the Internet" is defined by the page at WT:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages; what its name is is immaterial to the fact that if a language is listed on that page, then a term needs 3 cites if it goes through the WT:RFV process. Theknightwho (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Perhaps I'll open a discussion at the beer parlor at some point. Thank you for clarifying. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. We have had discussions about this before, without much success, but a lot of it boils down to who is around to participate in them. You'll note that we do sometimes carve out periods which fall under a given language (e.g. "Polish (except Middle Polish)"), so it may be possible. That being said, Early Modern English is still far easier to find examples of than many smaller minority languages spoken today, given huge numbers of books have been scanned onto places like the Internet Archive. Theknightwho (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)